AVAILABLE  ON   FlCHi 


tihtavy  of  trhe  Cheolo^icd  ^eminarjo 

PRINCETON  •  NEW  JERSEY 


PRESENTED  BY 

The  Estate  of 
Frederick  N.  Will son 


B55O0 

,  A  5  4  (^ 


.   /  ^  o^ 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM 


'  ^ 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM 


OR 


THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM  AND 


ITS  COUNTERFEIT 


BY 


SIR  ROBERT  ANDERSON,  K.C.B.,  LL.D. 

author  of  "  the  bible  and  modern  criticism,"  "  daniel  in  the 

critics'   den,"    *' the  silence  of  god,"    "the 

gospel  and  its  ministry,"  etc,  etc. 


NEW  YORK         CHICAGO         TORONTO 

FLEMING    H.    REVELL    COMPANY 

LONDON  AND  EDINBURGH 


Copyright,    1904,  by 
FLEMING  H.  REVELL  COMPANY 


New  York:  158  Fifth  Avenue 
Chicago  :  63  Washington  Street 
Toronto  :  27  Richmond  Street,  W. 
London:  21  Paternoster  Square 
Edinburgh:     30     St.    Mary    Street 


PREFACE 

This  book  is  an  exposure  of  a  false  system  of 
Biblical  Criticism,  by  which  ''  the  Higher  Criticism  " 
has  been  discredited  and  almost  supplanted.  And  Pro- 
fessor Driver's  "  Book  of  Genesis,"  which  has  ap- 
peared since  the  following  pages  were  written,  may 
serve  to  illustrate  the  distinction  here  intended. 

The  first  section  of  the  Introduction  to  that  book 
contains  an  analysis  of  the  text  of  Genesis;  the  two 
following  sections  are  mainly  a  presentation  of  the 
opinions  and  theories  and  dicta  of  foreign  scholars 
who  treat  the  Bible  on  Rationalistic  principles.  The 
one  is  an  interesting  and  valuable  study  in  Higher 
Criticism;  to  describe  the  other  sections  by  that  title 
is  a  mere  misuse  of  words. 

The  influence  of  the  Rationalists  appears  not  only 
in  the  general  drift  of  Canon  Driver's  treatise,  but  in 
many  of  its  specific  statements.  To  take  an  instance 
at  random,  he  writes : — 

"  We  have  found  that,  while  there  is  no  sufficient 
reason  for  doubting  the  existence  and  general  his- 
torical character  of  the  biographies  of  the  patriarchs, 
nevertheless  much  uncertainty  must  be  allowed  to 
attach  to  details  of  the  narrative  " ;  which  means  that 
though  the  Rationalists  have  failed  to  discover  any 
grounds  for  challenging  the  truth  of  the  narrative,  the 
Christian  has  no  sufficient  warrant  for  accepting  it. 
Or,  to  state  the  matter  tersely,  there  are  no  grounds 


6  PREFACE 

for  concluding  that  the  Genesis  narrative  is  not  true; 
but  in  the  absence  of  corroboration  from  pagan 
sources,  we  must  not  assume  its  truth.  For  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Bible  must  never  be  accorded  any  higher 
value  than  is  allovs^ed  to  the  evidence  of  "  informers  " 
in  our  courts  of  justice;  and  therefore  v^e  are  naturally 
on  the  alert  to  find  "  sufficient  reason  for  doubting  it  "  ! 

This  sort  of  criticism  is  gratifying  to  the  Rational- 
ist; but  a  Christian  naturally  shrinks  from  it.  And 
so,  in  the  concluding  section  of  his  Introduction,  Dr. 
Driver  goes  on  to  formulate  the  utterly  unintelligent 
and  wholly  untenable  compromise,  in  which  writers 
of  his  school  take  refuge  from  the  obvious  conse- 
quences of  their  teaching.  Although,  according  to  the 
writers  whose  views  he  adopts,^  Genesis  is  mainly  a 
compilation  of  myths  and  legends,  traceable  ultimately 
to  pagan  sources,  he  earnestly  insists  upon  "  the  in- 
spiration of  its  authors."  ^  This  may  satisfy  a  scholar 
among  his  books,  but  it  will  not  do  with  sensible  men 
of  the  world.  Such  men  care  nothing  for  contro- 
versial subtleties  about  the  inspiration  of  Scripture, 
but  they  will  rightly  hold  that  if  inspiration  be  not  a 
guarantee  of  truth,  it  may  be  classed  with  the  super- 
stitions of  religion. 

Professor  Driver's  note  on  the  Cosmogony  (pp.  19- 
33)  is  typical  of  the  ''  Critical "  methods.  He  proves 
clearly  that  Genesis  i.  may  be  construed  in  such  a  way 
as  to  discredit  it.  People  who  frequent  the  law  courts 
know  well  that  this  is  true  of  all  testimony,  no  matter 

^  Views,  not  one  of  which  has  originated  in  this  country, 
our  English  scholars  merely  "  edit "  them  in  such  a  way  as 
to  make  them  palatable  to  Christian  readers, 

'  P.  Ixix  /.    See  pp.  87,  88. 


PREFACE  t 

how  unimpeachable  it  may  be.  But,  in  contrast  with 
the  ways  of  the  ''  Critics,"  an  impartial  tribunal  al- 
ways seeks  to  put  a  favourable  construction  upon  the 
statements  of  a  witness  of  good  repute. 

To  take  a  single  illustrative  instance,  Professor 
Driver  reads  into  the  chapter  the  figment  of  "  the 
creation  of  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars  after  the  earth  " 
(p.  24)  ;  whereas  nothing  whatever  is  said  about  the 
"  creation  "  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  save  as  they  are 
included  in  the  first  verse.  The  word  used  in  verse  16 
is  of  the  broadest  meaning  and  widest  application,  and 
is  never  translated  by  "  create  "  in  the  English  Bible. 
Of  course  it  is  easy  in  this  way  to  make  Genesis  clash 
with  science. 

The  ''  narrative,"  he  avers,  *'  possesses  no  claim  to 
contain  a  scientific  account  of  the  origin  of  the  world." 
vBut  the  suggestion  that  in  a  Revelation  intended  for 
all  kinds  of  men  in  every  age  God  would  inspire  a 
"  scientific  account  of  the  origin  of  the  world,"  is 
nearly  as  grotesque  as  the  other  suggestion  which' 
Professor  Driver  elaborates,  that  He  would  inspire  a 
whitewashed  version  of  the  "  creation  epic  "  of  Baby- 
lon. 

The  question  is  not  whether  the  Cosmogony  teaches 
science,  which  no  one  asserts;  but  whether  it  is  dis- 
credited by  science,  which  no  one  has  proved.  And 
not  even  the  testimony  of  such  a  scientist  as  Dana  in 
its  defence  will  weigh  as  much  with  men  of  the  world, 
as  the  fact  that  such  a  scientist  as  Huxley  entered  the 
lists  to  prove  it  in  error  and  failed.^ 

The  order  of  the  events  recorded  in  Genesis  i.  could 
be  stated  in  some  four  or  five  thousand  different  ways. 

^  See  p.  23, 


8  PREFACE 

[And  the  fact  that  the  order  as  given  is  not  inconsistent 
with  the  science  of  our  own  age,  points  unmistakably 
to  the  conclusion  at  which  Professor  Driver  arrives, 
i  that  it  was  written  by  Divine  inspiration.  The  alterna- 
tive supposition  would  be  that  thousands  of  years  ago 
the  Hebrews  were  abreast  of  what  we  call  "  modern 
science." 

The  Pseudo-Criticism  has  won  its  way  chiefly  be- 
cause its  exponents  have  been  allowed  to  warn  off  all 
who  are  not  philological  experts.  In  the  following 
pages  the  reader  will  find  proof  that  these  questions  are 
no  preserves  of  the  book  scholar;  that  in  dealing  with 
them  common-sense  and  acquaintance  with  the  science 
of  evidence  are  of  primary  importance;  and  that, 
therefore,  educated  "  men  of  affairs  "  are  better  fitted 
to  decide  what  are  the  "  assured  results  of  modern 
Criticism  "  than  the  pundits  and  the  professors. 

The  Critics,  moreover,  seem  to  think  that  super- 
stition is  the  monopoly  of  those  who  refuse  to  accept 
those  "  results."  But  in  discrediting  the  Bible,  super- 
stition becomes  their  only  refuge  from  Rationalism. 
And  the  denial  of  the  Virgin  Birth,  and  of  other 
transcendental  truths  of  Christianity,  shows  how  the 
current  is  setting  at  this  moment.  Are  we  in  England 
prepared  to  follow  the  lead  of  Germany  in  this 
respect  ? 

The  fact  is  that  the  Critics  are  so  engrossed  with 
what  may  be  called  the  surface  difficulties  of  Bible 
study,  that  they  overlook  difficulties  of  a  far  graver 
kind;  difficulties  which  bring  all  fearless  thinkers  to 
the  parting  of  the  ways,  compelling  them  to  make 
choice  between  accepting  the  Bible  as  a  Divine  revela- 
tion, or  giving  up  belief  in  Christianity.     The  diffi- 


PREFACE  9 

culties  which  the  Critics  deal  in  have  their  counterpart 
in  the  sphere  of  God's  moral  government  of  the  world 
— they  are  a  part  of  the  discipline  of  the  life  of  faith : 
the  deeper  difficulties  which  the  Critics  ignore  have  no 
parallel  in  the  natural  sphere. 

The  author's  former  book  on  this  subject  is  ad- 
dressed to  Bible  students;  the  present  work  appeals 
mainly  to  men  of  the  world  as  such.  The  scheme  of 
it  has  been  suggested  by  the  reception  accorded  to  the 
Bishop  of  Durham's  Preface  to  the  ''  Bible  and 
Modern  Criticism."  Dr.  Moule  has  unique  claims  to 
a  respectful  hearing  on  questions  of  this  kind.  And 
he  has  seldom  written  with  more  impressive  earnest- 
ness than  in  appealing  to  Christians  to  take  note  of  the 
tendencies  of  this  so-called  Criticism  of  the  Bible.  But 
his  appeal  has  been  entirely  ignored  by  the  Critics; 
and  their  press  organs  have  dismissed  it  with  scant 
courtesy.  They  seem  blind  to  the  consequences  of  their 
teaching,  and  contemptuously  indifferent  to  the 
opinions  of  all  who  differ  from  them. 

The  nature  of  those  consequences  is  here  illustrated 
by  the  case  of  three  representative  men — Dr.  Har- 
nack,  Professor  Friedrich  Delitzsch,  and  Professor 
George  Adam  Smith. 

Chapter  V.  is  mainly  an  extract  from  the  author's 
"  Christianised  Rationalism  and  the  Higher  Criticism, 
an  Answer  to  Dr.  Harnack's  '  What  is  Christian- 
ity?'"^ 

As  for  Chapter  VIII. ,  Professor  Driver's  "  Book  of 

^  "  Twentieth  Century  Papers  "  Series.  The  author  had  the 
honour  of  presenting  a  copy  of  that  treatise  to  the  German 
Emperor,  and  of  receiving  His  Majesty's  "sincere  thanks" 
for  it. 


10  PREFACE 

Genesis  "  may  serve  to  point  the  moral  there  enforced. 
For  while  he  freely  discusses  the  views  of  eminent 
Critics,  the  teaching  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  he  syste- 
matically ignores.  The  "  Bible  Dictionary,"  of  which 
Dr.  Driver  himself  is  one  of  the  editors,  tells  us  that 
our  Divine  Lord  was  the  dupe  of  "  current  Jewish  no- 
tions "  about  the  Old  Testament.^  This  indeed  is  one 
of  ''the  assured  results  of  modern  Criticism."  Even 
an  English  clergyman,  therefore,  can  now  afford  to 
dismiss  His  teaching  as  unworthy  of  notice. 

In  conclusion,  the  author  wishes  to  acknowledge  his 
obligations  to  the  Rev.  Robert  Sinker,  D.  D.,  Librarian 
of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge,  for  encouragement  and 
valuable  help  in  preparing  these  pages  for  the  press. 

39  Linden  Gardens,  W., 
London. 

^  See  p.  94. 


PSEUDO  CRITICISM 


CHAPTER  I 

WERE  I  here  to  describe  the  measures 
adopted  by  the  poHce  in  tracking  criminals 
and  bringing  them  to  justice,  the  popular- 
ity of  my  book  would  no  doubt  be  vastly  greater  than 
these  pages  are  likely  to  attain.  But  if  I  turn  aside 
to  speak  of  police  inquiries  and  the  proceedings  of  our 
courts  of  justice,  it  will  be  merely  in  passing  and  by 
way  of  illustration,  and  to  give  prominence  to  two 
theses  which,  though  of  principal  importance  in  con- 
nection with  my  subject,  are  generally  ignored.  For 
my  subject  is  a  defence  of  the  Higher  Criticism  against 
the  reproach  which  has  fallen  upon  it,  and  an  ex- 
posure of  the  vagaries  and  errors  of  a  pseudo-Criti- 
cism which  has  filched  a  title  to  which  it  has  no  just 
claim. 

It  is  manifestly  of  greater  consequence  that  we 
should  have  wholesome  unadulterated  bread,  than  that 
we  should  know  who  baked  it,  and  by  whom  the 
wheat  was  grown  and  ground.  And  it  is  incomparably 
more  important  that  we  should  have  an  accurate  text  I 
of  the  Bible,  than  that  we  should  know  where,  and 
when,  and  by  whom  the  various  books  were  written  or 
compiled.  The  pure  loaf — to  keep  up  the  figure — we 
owe  to  "  Textual  Criticism  " ;  while  "  Higher  Criti- 
cism "  claims  to  enlighten  us  about  its  history.     It  is 


n  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

obvious,  therefore,  that,  by  the  test  of  practical  use- 
fulness, the  Higher  Criticism  must  be  content  with  a 
secondary  place. 

But  this  is  no  disparagement  of  a  system  o£  study 
which  has  thrown  new  light  upon  many  parts  of  Holy 
Scripture,  and  has  brought  us  new  proofs  of  its  au- 
thenticity and  accuracy,  proofs  of  a  kind  that  preced- 
ing generations  knew  nothing  of. 

And  even  if  its  legitimate  results  should  disturb 
certain  "  orthodox  traditions,"  the  Bible  is  the  gainer ; 
and  those  who  make  that  a  ground  for  refusing  its 
help,  do  a  great  disservice  to  the  cause  of  truth.  The 
Higher  Criticism  is  admirable  in  its  aims,  and  its 
results  should  be  hailed  with  thankfulness  by  every 
Christian. 

But  here  we  must  distinguish.  The  records  of 
crime  would  disclose  many  a  case  in  which  men  who 
were  honestly  pursuing  a  legitimate  calling  became 
involved  in  some  nefarious  business  of  a  wholly  differ- 
ent kind,  and  ended  by  treating  their  nefarious  and 
their  honest  pursuits  as  one  concern.  So  was  it  with 
the  pioneers  of  the  Higher  Criticism.  In  their  day 
infidelity  was  rampant  in  Germany,  and  they  con- 
ceived the  laudable  desire  of  winning  back  the  edu- 
cated classes  to  Christianity.  To  attain  this  end  they 
consented  to  treat  the  Bible  on  the  Dutch  auction 
principle,  lowering  its  claims  to  a  level  at  which  the 
Rationalists  would  accept  it  on  their  own  terms.  Mir- 
acles, of  course,  were  jettisoned.  Inspiration,  which 
is  but  one  sort  of  miracle,  went  overboard ;  and  proph- 
ecy shared  in  the  general  wreck.  In  a  word,  every 
Divine  element  in  the  Bible  was  abandoned,  and  the 
critical   study   of   "the   living  and   eternally   abiding 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  IS 

Word  of  God  "  degenerated  into  a  sort  of  literary 
post-mortem  upon  a  purely  human  and  altogether  dead 
book.  And  in  the  pursuit  of  that  study,  as  time  went 
on,  infidels  of  the  type  of  Kuenen  and  Wellhausen 
supplanted  enlightened  and  spiritual  men  who  rever- 
enced the  Scriptures. 

Every  intelligent  person  will  recognise  that  this 
sceptical  crusade  against  the  Bible,  which  masquer- 
ades as  "  Higher  Criticism,"  bears  no  kinship  with 
inquiries  such  as  those  to  which  that  title  properly 
belongs.  Their  aims  are  different;  their  methods  are 
different;  and  their  results,  of  course,  lie  wide  apart. 
We  must  always  distinguish,  therefore,  between  true 
Criticism  and  its  counterfeit;  between  the  Higher 
Criticism  and  "  Higher  Criticism  "  in  inverted  commas. 
The  one  finds  an  apt  illustration  in  the  proceedings  of 
an  English  court  of  justice;  the  other  reminds  us  of 
a  French  court-martial  upon  a  Jew  accused  of  treason. 
Like  most  words,  critic  has  various  meanings.  Ety- 
mologically  and  in  its  highest  sense  it  signifies  a  judge; 
popularly,  it  stands  for  a  hostile  fault-finder.  The 
''  Critic  "  in  inverted  commas  belongs  to  the  second 
category. 

As  already  indicated,  the  importance  of  ascertaining 
the  text  of  Scripture  is  greater  than  that  of  analysing 
it.  The  latent  boast  in  the  title  of  Higher  Criticism 
can  therefore  be  justified  only  by  the  fact  that  not  even 
Textual  Criticism  demands  so  wide  a  range  and  so 
high  a  development  of  judicial  qualities.^    And  yet,  in 

^  The  triumph  of  the  Westcott-Hort  school  of  Textual 
criticism  in  the  revision  of  the  New  Testament  was  due  to 
either  ignorance  or  neglect  of  the  science  of  evidence.  The 
mutilation  of  the  Gospels  by  making  the  text  agree  with  cer- 


14  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

this  very  sphere,  even  the  educated  and  cultured 
classes  are  content  bhndly  to  accept  the  dicta  of  men 
who  have  no  knowledge  of  the  science  of  evidence,  and 
most  of  whom  are  evidently  destitute  of  the  judicial 
faculty. 

Let  us  take  the  case,  for  instance,  of  an  inquiry 
respecting  the  genuineness  of  the  books  of  Moses. 
A  competent  knowledge  of  ancient  languages,  and  an 
intimate  acquaintance  with  the  results  of  archaeological 
research,  might  fit  anyone  to  give  valuable  evidence 
in  any  such  inquiry.  But  it  would  afford  no  guarantee 
whatever  of  fitness  to  adjudicate  upon  that  evidence. 
It  is  not  pretended,  of  course,  that  the  study  of  He- 
brew or  of  the  cuneiform  inscriptions  disqualifies  for 
the  practical  side  of  life.  But  there  is  not  an  under- 
graduate in  any  one  of  our  universities  who  could  not 
fill  in  half  a  dozen  names  to  illustrate  Matthew 
Arnold's  dictum,  that  men  who  "  make  study  and 
learning  the  business  of  their  lives  "  are  apt,  "  from 
want  of  some  discipline  or  other,  to  lose  all  balance  of 
judgment,  all  common-sense." 

The  value  of  an  expert's  evidence  depends  not 
merely  on  his  exceptional  acquaintance  with  the  sub- 
ject which  he  has  made  a  specialty,  but  also  on  his 
capacity  of  concentrating  attention  and  thought  upon 
one  particular  element  in  an  inquiry.  This  very  habit, 
however,  makes  him  impatient  when  others  insist  on 
taking  a  wider  view  than  his  own,  and  giving  due 

tain  of  the  oldest  MSS.  was  but  an  example  of  the  tendency 
of  laymen — and  here  the  New  Testament  Company  were  mere 
laymen — to  disparage  indirect  evidence  when  direct  evidence 
is  available.  No  lawyer  would  accept  the  authority  of  those 
MSS.  against  the  united  voice  of  the  Versions  and  the  Fathers. 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  15 

weight  to  considerations  of  a  kind  that  he  ignores. 
The  very  qualities,  therefore,  which  constitute  his 
value  as  a  witness  tend  to  unfit  him  for  the  position 
of  a  judge.  Hence  it  is  that  no  civilised  community 
tolerates  a  tribunal  of  experts. 

In  a  recent  trial  in  London  the  practice  of  vivisec- 
tion was  involved.  In  another,  patent  medicines  sup- 
plied the  issue.  If  a  court  of  experts  could  ever  be 
justified,  it  was  here.  But  the  experts  were  relegated 
to  the  witness-chair,  and  men  who  had  no  technical 
knowledge  of  medicine  in  the  one  case,  and  of  vivi- 
section in  the  other,  heard  their  evidence,  and  arrived 
at  decisions  which  commanded  public  confidence. 

All  this  is  familiar  ground  to  the  lawyer.  And  if  I 
were  here  to  draw  upon  my  own  experience  for  practi- 
cal illustrations  of  the  blunders  of  experts,  I  should, 
as  already  suggested,  add  much  to  the  interest  of 
these  pages.  Among  the  *'  undiscovered  murders  "  the 
enumeration  of  which  in  that  category  may  be  thus 
explained,  would  be  one  of  the  cases  reckoned  among 
the  exploits  of  the  now  historic  "  Jack  the  Ripper." 
The  popular  history  of  the  "  Whitechapel  murders," 
I  may  add,  is  based  largely  on  the  theories  of  experts. 
And,  while  the  author  of  those  crimes  was  horribly 
real,  "  Jack  the  Ripper  "  is  a  myth. 

But  such  matters  cannot  fitly  be  discussed  here. 
And  if  I  mention  one  more  case  in  brief  detail,  it  is 
because  it  points  so  aptly  the  special  moral  which  I 
wish  to  enforce. 

In  the  South- Western  Railway  murder  case  of  1897, 
an  elaborate  chain  of  circumstantial  evidence  closed 
round  a  particular  person.  The  only  apparent  flaw  in 
it  was  that  a  principal  witness  wavered  in  his  identi- 


16  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

fication  of  the  accused.  But  the  ground  of  his  hesita- 
tion was  because  the  man  was  clean  shaved,  whereas 
the  murderer  wore  a  mustache.  The  witness  did  not 
know,  however,  that  an  hour  before  the  crime  was 
committed  the  man  whom  he  singled  out  of  a  dozen 
paraded  for  inspection  had  entered  a  barber's  shop 
and  purchased  a  false  mustache. 

That  fact  seemed  to  render  a  case  which  was  already 
strong  both  complete  and  irresistible.  But  it  was  in- 
separably bound  up  with  another  fact.  The  distance 
between  the  barber's  shop  and  the  railway  station  at 
which  the  murderer  joined  his  victim  in  the  train  was 
adequate  proof  of  an  alibi  which  shattered  the  whole 
case  against  the  accused.  That  one  fact  possibly  saved 
him  from  the  gallows. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  apparent  success  of  the  false  "  Higher 
Criticism  "  largely  depends  on  the  fallacy  of 
supposing  that  if  a  seemingly  complete  case 
is  made  out  against  the  genuineness  of  a  book,  the  fact 
is  thereby  established  that  it  is  not  genuine.  The 
Critics  boast  of  superior  knowledge:  have  they  never 
heard  of  cases  such  as  that  mentioned  at  the  close  of 
the  preceding  chapter  ?  ^  It  is  not  necessary  to  go 
back  to  the  days  of  unscrupulous  and  cruel  judges  to 
seek  for  cases  where  innocent  men  have  been  con- 
victed of  crime  on  seemingly  valid  evidence.  The 
records  of  the  Home  Office  during  the  years  of  my 
official  connection  with  that  department  would  furnish 
many  striking  instances  of  the  kind. 

But  more  than  this :  are  the  Critics  aware  that  no 
criminal  charge  is  ever  sent  for  trial  unless  an  appar- 
ently complete  case  is  offered  in  support  of  it;  and 
that  in  a  civil  action  the  defendant  is  never  called  upon 
unless  a  case  is  established  which,  if  unanswered, 
would  entitle  the  plaintiff  to  a  verdict?  And  one  of 
the  main  functions  of  a  judge  is  to  see  to  it  that  no 
one  shall  be  put  upon  his  defence,  whether  in  a  crim- 

^  The  only  thing  exceptional  about  that  case  was  that,  al- 
though, for  reasons  which  I  need  not  mention,  an  efficient  and 
zealous  police  officer  made  special  efforts  to  find  rebutting 
evidence,  the  one  exculpatory  fact  stood  alone. 

17 


18  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

inal  or  in  a  civil  court,  unless  and  until. an  apparently 
complete  case  has  been  established  to  his  prejudice  by 
legal  evidence. 

The  thoughtless  and  the  prejudiced  may  ignore  all 
this.  But  the  intelligent  reader  will  apply  it  to  the 
subject  in  hand;  and  it  will  enable  him  to  form  a  just 
estimate  of  the  pretensions  of  the  pseudo-Criticism. 

One  of  the  "  assured  results  "  of  this  Criticism,  for 
example,  is  that  the  Pentateuch  is  a  Jewish  work  of  a 
comparatively  late  date.  But,  as  we  have  seen,  a  really 
strong  case  can  be  shattered  by  a  single  fact ;  and  even 
if  the  Critics'  case  against  the  Mosaic  books  were  as 
complete  as  it  is  faulty,  there  is  one  fact  that  would 
explode  it :  and  that  fact  is  the  Samaritan  Bible, 

In  the  Jewish  Bible — which  is  identical  with  what 
we  call  "  The  Old  Testament  " — the  books  are  grouped 
in  three  divisions ;  namely,  "  the  Law,"  "  the  Proph- 
ets," and  "  the  Writings."  But  there  was  a  standing 
feud  between  the  Jews  and  the  Samaritans ;  and  as  the 
first  division  of  the  Canon  was  the  only  one  which 
was  wholly  free  from  Jewish  taint,  the  sacrosanct 
Scriptures  of  the  Samaritans  were  limited  to  the 
Pentateuch. 

And  yet  the  Critics  would  have  us  believe  that  the 
Scriptures  which  these  men  held  in  such  special  rever- 
ence were  literary  forgeries,  written  by  Jews  after  the 
Ten  Tribes  had  separated  from  them,  and  a  consider- 
able portion  of  which  dated  from  after  the  return  of 
the  Jews  from  the  Babylonian  Captivity.^ 

*  The  Critics  differ  as  to  the  precise  dates  to  which  the 
several  parts  of  the  Pentateuch  should  be  assigned.  And 
such  details  have  no  bearing  on  my  argument.    For  they  are 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  19 

The  reader  will  demand,  perhaps,  "  What  answer 
do  the  Critics  give  to  this  ?  "  The  Critics  give  no 
answer  whatever  to  it.  Indeed,  they  never  notice  any- 
thing urged  against  what  they  call  ''  the  assured  re- 
sults "  of  their  inquiries.  And  why  ?  Presumably 
because,  as  I  have  said,  they  imagine  that  if  a  case  can 
be  established  for  or  against  anything,  the  question 
at  issue  is  settled.  It  is  an  attitude  of  mind  with  which 
my  experience  of  legal  and  police  work  has  made  me 
familiar. 

Before  turning  away  from  this,  let  me  emphasise 
two  points.  The  first  is,  that  the  fact  of  the  Samaritan 
Bible  is  as  definite  a  bar  to  the  sane  and  reasonable 
views  associated  with  the  name  of  that  most  eminent 
of  the  Critics,  the  late  Professor  Dillmann,  as  it  is  to 
what  may  be  described  as  the  criticism  pour  rire  of  the 
Graf-Wellhausen  apostasy.  And  the  second  is,  that 
while  in  a  criminal  trial  the  case  against  the  accused 
is  based  on  facts — definite  and  thoroughly  tested  facts 
which  satisfy  men  whose  only  aim  is  to  arrive  at 
truth — the  attack  upon  the  Pentateuch  rests  entirely 
on  critical  theories  and  inferences,  without  a  single 
fact  to  support  it. 

Here  is  Professor  Driver^s  statement  of  the  case : — 

"  We  can  only  argue  upon  grounds  of  probability  derived 
from  our  view  of  the  progress  of  the  art  of  writing,  or  of 
literary    composition,    or    of    the    rise    and    growth    of    the 

agreed  that  the  Pentateuch  as  a  whole  dates  from  after  the 
return  from  Babylon.  And  this  was  the  very  period  when  the 
action  of  the  Jews  towards  them  rendered  the  Samaritans  so 
bitterly  hostile.  That  a  book  which  originated  at  such  time 
should  have  been  adopted  as  their  Bible  is  quite  incredible. 


^0  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

prophetic  tone  and  feeling  in  ancient  Israel,  or  of  the  period 
at  which  the  traditions  contained  in  the  narratives  might  have 
taken  shape,  or  of  the  probability  that  they  would  have  been 
written  down  before  the  impetus  given  to  culture  by  the 
monarchy  had  taken  effect,  and  similar  considerations,  for 
estimating  most  of  which,  though  plausible  arguments,  on  one 
side  or  the  other,  may  be  advanced,  a  standard  on  which  we 
can  confidently  rely  scarcely  admits  of  being  fixed."  ("  Intro- 
duction," 6th  ed.,  p.  123.) 

If  the  Critics  had  remembered  Archbishop  Whately's 
"  Historic  Doubts  relative  to  Napoleon  Buonoparte," 
a  saving  sense  of  humour  might  have  led  them  to 
conceal  in  some  way  the  kinship  of  their  case  against 
the  Patriarchs  and  the  Mosaic  records,  with  the  argu- 
ment to  prove  that  Napoleon  was  a  myth,  and  the 
reports  of  his  defeats  and  victories  untrustworthy !  ^ 

''  Grounds  of  probability :  plausible  arguments/* — 
Fancy  a  suit  to  set  aside  some  ancient  deed  or  charter, 
based  on  "  evidence  "  of  this  kind !  If  only  we  could 
get  these  pseudo-Critics  before  any  sort  of  competent 
tribunal,  they  would  be  ''  laughed  out  of  court "  in  an 
hour. 

I  commend  to  the  reader  the  following  words  of  an 
eminent  scholar  of  a  different  school,  a  man  of  such 
a  sensitively  judicial  cast  of  mind  that  he  is  generally 
apt  to  understate  his  case — I  refer  to  the  Dean  of  Can- 
terbury : — 

"The  origin  and  composition  of  the  Pentateuch  according 
to  those  theories  is  of  so  unexampled  and  extraordinary  a 

*A  postscript  to  the  12th  edition  is  a  splendid  piece  of 
pseudo-Criticism,  proving  conclusively  that  Moscow  was  never 
burned  at  all ! 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  21 

character,  that  the  most  positive  historical  evidence  would  be 
required  to  justify  our  acceptance  of  such  an  account  of  it. 
There  is  no  instance  of  an  ancient  book  of  history  being  com- 
posed like  a  tesselated  pavement,  in  which  several  unknown 
sources  are  dove-tailed  into  one  another,  sometimes  in  the 
most  minute  pieces.  Still  less  is  there  any  instance  of  an 
elaborate  historical  and  legislative  work  having  been  composed 
with  the  object  of  confusing,  if  not  perverting,  a  nation's  tra- 
ditions of  its  own  history  and  its  ancient  laws;  still  less  of 
such  a  work  succeeding  in  the  attempt.  If  such  a  scheme 
were  difficult  with  any  nation,  it  would  be  tenfold  more  diffi- 
cult in  the  case  of  the  Jews,  one  of  whose  chief  characteristics, 
at  once  their  strength  and  their  danger,  is  their  intense 
tenacity,  and  who  were  always,  for  good  or  for  harm,  *a 
stiff-necked  people.'  But  it  is  impossible  not  to  add  that,  most 
incredible,  if  not  most  monstrous,  of  all,  is  the  supposition 
that  such  a  pious  fraud  was  committed  at  the  instigation  of 
the  God  of  truth,  and  that  the  books  which  are  its  record 
and  its  instrument  can  be  regarded  as  inspired  by  Him."  ^ 

This  attack  upon  the  Pentateuch  has  a  sinister  his- 
tory. It  originated  long  ago,  when  paganism  sought 
to  check  the  spread  of  Christianity.  It  was  revived  in 
the   eighteenth    century   by    Jean    Astruc,    a    typical 

^  This  extract  is  from  Dr.  Wace's  "  Summary  to  Lex 
Mosaica,"  p.  617;  a  series  of  essays  by  eminent  scholars, 
which  are  a  masterly  refutation  of  the  pseudo-Criticism  and 
a  valuable  exposition  of  the  true  Higher  Criticism.  "  Are  the 
Critics  Right?"  by  Wilhelm  Moller — formerly  "immovably 
convinced  of  the  irrefutable  correctness  of  the  Graf-Well- 
hausen  hypothesis  " — is,  in  smaller  compass,  an  able  defence 
of  the  Pentateuch.  And  "  Criticism  Criticised  "  is  a  report  of 
the  Oxford  meetings  on  this  subject,  with  papers  by  the  Dean 
of  Canterbury,  Prof.  Margoliouth,  and  others.  In  the  same 
connection  I  would  mention  Canon  Girdlestone's  "  Hebrew 
Criticism";  and  "Higher  Criticism,"  by  Rev.  Robert  Sinker, 
D.  D.,  Librarian  of  Trin.  Coll.,  Cambridge, 


22  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

Frenchman  of  that  period — half- Jesuit,  half-infidel — 
and  it  was  afterwards  formulated  by  German  Ration- 
alists. The  ground  on  which  it  found  favour  in 
England  is  now  discarded  as  an  ignorant  blunder. 
For  it  was  assumed  that  history  began  with  the 
Greeks,  and  that  what  were  then  regarded  as  pre- 
historic times  were  barbarous.  It  was  therefore  held 
to  be  incredible  that  such  a  marvellous  literature  as 
the  Mosaic  books  could  have  originated  a  thousand 
years  before  Herodotus.  To-day,  however,  history 
dates  back  to  ages  far  remote,  and  it  is  known  that  a 
thousand  years  even  before  Moses  literature  flour- 
ished. And  we  are  told  on  high  authority  that  "  In 
the  century  before  the  Exodus,  Palestine  was  a  land  of 
books  and  schools."  ^  It  had  long  enjoyed  a  high 
civilisation. 

But  infidels  care  nothing  for  the  discoveries  of 
archaeology.  That  their  Christian  allies  should  ignore 
the  protests  based  upon  them  by  men  like  Professor 
Sayce  (whose  words  I  have  here  quoted)  is  one  of  the 
enigmas  of  this  controversy. 

The  question  of  inspiration  is  quite  outside  the 
scope  of  my  present  argument.  And  it  will  be  time 
enough  to  defend  the  historical  accuracy  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch when  some  case  has  been  made  out  to  call  for 
an  answer.  Every  archaeological  discovery  has  been 
confirmatory  of  it — a  statement  which,  if  untrue,  is 
easily  refuted. 

^  "  Lex  Mosaica,"  p.  9.  In  a  treatise  so  recent  as  the  Intro- 
duction to  The  Speaker's  Commentary,  we  read,  "  The  first 
question  which  naturally  occurs  is,  Was  the  art  of  writing 
known  in  the  age  of  Moses  ?  " 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  23 

As  for  the  ^'  Mosaic  Cosmogony,"  if  the  Gladstone- 
Huxley  tournament  upon  that  question  in  the  pages  of 
the  Nineteenth  Century  has  failed  to  silence  the  silly 
cuckoo-cry  about  "  the  conflict  between  Science  and 
Genesis,"  all  discussion  is  idle.  Mr.  Gladstone's  thesis 
was  that  Science  is  perfectly  in  accord  with  Genesis 
as  to  the  order  in  which  life  appeared  upon  our  globe. 
Upon  one  point  only  did  Professor  Huxley  attempt  to 
upset  this,  and  that  point  depended  on  interpreting 
*'  creeping  things  "  in  Genesis  i.  by  the  use  of  the  word 
in  Leviticus  xi.  29-31.  "The  merest  Sunday-School 
exegesis,"  he  said,  "  suffices  to  prove  that  when  the 
Mosaic  writer  in  Genesis  i.  24  speaks  of  creeping 
things,  he  means  to  include  lizards  among  them."  A 
sheer  blunder,  based  on  the  chance  reading  of  the 
EngHsh  Bible;  for  there  is  no  affinity  between  the 
word  used  in  Genesis  i.  and  that  employed  in  Leviti- 
cus xi. 

But  instead  of  apologising  to  the  "  Sunday  School," 
Professor  Huxley  appealed  to  his  "  eminent  friend 
Professor  Dana "  on  the  general  question,  and  Pro- 
fessor Dana's  answer  was,  "  I  believe  that  the  first 
chapter  of  Genesis  and  Science  are  in  accord."  ^ 

But,  it  will  be  said,  the  testimony  of  true  Higher 
Criticism  is  decisive  on  the  main  question  here  at 
issue.  Such  a  statement  betokens  either  effrontery  or 
ignorance.  True  Criticism  argues  that  if  Greek  words 
are  found  in  Daniel,  the  book  was  presumably  written 
in  the  Greek  period ;  and  that  if  wilderness  words  are 
found  in  Exodus,  the  book  was  written  in  the  time 

'^Nineteenth  Century,  August,  1886,  p.  304.  See  "The  Bible 
and  Modern  Criticism,"  chap.  x. 


M  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

of  the  desert  wanderings.  But  though  facts  refute  the 
argument  in  regard  to  Daniel,  and  establish  its  va- 
lidity in  regard  to  Exodus,  the  pseudo-Critics  insist 
on  rejecting  both  these  books.  Whether  this  dis- 
credits the  books  or  the  Critics,  the  reader  must 
decide. 

Candour  will  admit,  however,  that  while  philological 
inquiry  is  entirely  on  the  side  of  the  Pentateuch,  it 
seemed  formerly  to  afford  materials  for  a  plausible 
case  against  Daniel.  When  the  old  pagan  attack  upon 
the  book  was  renewed  in  modern  times,  ten  Greek 
words  at  least  were  enumerated  as  a  ground  for  dis- 
crediting it.  But  this  was  a  blunder.  The  Critics 
themselves  now  acknowledge  that  the  only  Greek 
words  in  Daniel  are  the  names  of  two,  or  possibly 
three,  of  the  musical  instruments  mentioned  in  the 
third  chapter. 

And  the  presence  of  these  can  be  accounted  for. 
Professor  Sayce  has  shown  that  "  there  were  Greek 
colonies  on  the  coast  of  Palestine  in  the  time  of  Heze- 
kiah,"  ^  a  century  before  Daniel  was  born.  In  recog- 
nition of  the  services  of  Greek  mercenaries  in  his 
army,  King  Pharaoh  Necho  (possibly  on  the  field 
where  King  Josiah  fell)  dedicated  his  corselet  at  a 
Greek  shrine.  And  a  brother  of  the  Greek  poet  Al- 
cseus  won  distinction  in  the  army  of  Babylon  at  the 
very  time  when  Daniel  held  power  in  the  palace.^ 
That  Greek  musical  instruments  should  have  been 
used  in  the  court  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  that  they 

*  "  Higher  Criticism  and  the  Monuments,"  p.  494. 
'  Grote's  "  History  of  Greece,"   Part  II.  chap.  xix.     Bible 
Diet.,  art.  "  Neco."    "  The  House  of  Seleucus,"  p.  8, 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  25 

should  have  carried  their  Greek  names  with  them, 
might  therefore  be  regarded  as  a  matter  of  course. 

What,  then,  will  the  reader  think  when  I  add  that  a 
contemporary  advocate  of  the  critical  hypothesis  per- 
sists in  declaring  that  "  the  Greek  words  demand  a 
date  [for  the  book  of  Daniel]  after  the  conquest  of 
Palestine  by  Alexander  "  ?  He  will  probably  suspect 
me  of  resorting  to  the  base  artifice  of  trying  to  dis- 
credit the  distinguished  scholars  of  the  "  Higher  Criti- 
cism "  by  identifying  them  with  language  used  by 
some  foolish  or  unscrupulous  "  satellite  "  of  the  move- 
ment. Not  so.  The  statement  I  have  quoted  is  put 
forward  deliberately  and  emphatically  by  the  most 
eminent  and  most  trusted  exponent  of  the  "  Higher 
Criticism  "  in  England — I  mean  Professor  Driver  of 
Oxford. 

This,  of  course,  does  not  establish  the  genuineness 
of  Daniel.  But  such  is  not  my  present  purpose.  Here 
I  pose  merely  as  an  iconoclast,  not  as  the  exponent  of 
a  true  creed.  Ninety-nine  people  out  of  every  hun- 
dred who  accept  the  "  critical  view  "  of  the  book  do  so 
on  the  authority  of  scholars  like  Canon  Driver.  And 
my  object  is  merely  to  show  that  the  dicta  of  these 
distinguished  men  are  not  always  trustworthy. 

As  everyone  who  is  versed  in  the  Daniel  contro- 
versy is  aware,  our  English  scholars  merely  reproduce 
the  case  made  out  by  foreign  sceptics ;  and  the  sceptics 
have  added  but  little  to  the  old  arguments  of  Por- 
phyry the  pagan.  They  ctart  with  the  assumption 
that  any  book  which  records  a  miracle  or  contains  a 
prophecy  must  be  false;  and  their  effort  is,  not  to  in- 
quire whether  Daniel  is  genuine,  but  to  prove  that  it 


26  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

is  a  forgery.  They  are  compelled  to  maintain,  there- 
fore, that  the  book  was  written  in  the  days  of  An- 
tiochus,  not  earlier  than  the  fourth  decade  of  the 
second  century  b.  c. 

But  if  the  case  they  have  piled  up  in  proof  of  this 
were  as  strong  as  it  is  feeble,  a  number  of  facts  could 
be  appealed  to,  any  one  of  which  would  be  sufficient  to 
destroy  it. 

The  first  fact  is  the  Jewish  Canon.  For  the  Canon 
included  no  book  which  was  not  believed  to  have  been 
in  existence  in  the  time  of  Nehemiah.  And  it  was 
closed  not  later  than  half  a  century  after  the  death  of 
Antiochus.^  And  yet,  according  to  the  "  critical 
hypothesis,"  Daniel  was  written  within  the  memory 
of  men  who  finally  settled  the  Canon. 

The  next  fact  is  the  Septuagint  Version.  For  the 
Critics  themselves  admit  that  that  version  was  made 
before  First  Maccabees  was  written,  and  the  corrup- 
tions which  mark  it  give  proof  that  at  the  time  when 
it  was  made  Daniel  was  an  ancient  book. 

Another  fact  is  the  book  of  Ecclesiasticus.  For 
Daniel  is  cited  by  the  Son  of  Sirach,^  who  wrote  at 
least  a  quarter  of  a  century  before  Antiochus  began 

^  As  to  both  points  my  authority  is  Dr.  Ryle's  "  Canon  of 
the  Old  Testament"  (pp.  175  and  188).  My  argument  de- 
pends on  the  fact  of  the  Jewish  belief,  and  that  is  not  doubt- 
ful. 

^  Three  quotations  from  the  book  of  Daniel  are  cited  by 
Dr.  Schechter  in  his  Introduction  to  "  The  Wisdom  of  Ben- 
Sira,"  but  of  course  they  are  not  accepted  as  quotations  by  the 
Critics.  I  beg  to  refer  to  my  "  Daniel  in  the  Critics'  Den," 
pp.  101-103  (1902  ed.). 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  27 

to  reign.  And,  I  may  add,  the  proof  that  the  whole 
Jewish  Canon  was  then  already  closed  is  almost  ade- 
quate to  satisfy  even  a  hostile  witness/ 

And  if  these  and  other  external  facts  could  be  dis- 
posed of,  the  ninth  chapter  would  still  bar  the  "  crit- 
ical hypothesis."  For  not  even  the  subtle  ingenuity  of 
the  sceptics,  aided  by  a  false  punctuation  of  verse  25,^ 
can  get  rid  of  the  Messianic  prophecy  of  the  Seventy 
Weeks.  This,  however,  only  establishes  the  minor 
premise  of  their  syllogism.  Its  major  premise  is  that 
every  book  which  professes  to  be  a  Divine  prophecy 
is  a  fraud. 

We  hear  ad  nauseam  of  "  the  decisions  of  modern 
Biblical  criticism."  The  wild  vagaries  of  pseudo- 
Criticism  abound;  but  a  court  entitled  to  give  de- 
cisions in  the  name  of  true  Criticism  has  never  yet  been 
constituted.  "  The  assured  results  of  the  best  and 
latest  scholarship  "  include  the  rejection  of  the  New 
Testament  "  as  a  tissue  of  deceptions  and  forgeries." 
Not  so,  we  shall  be  told,  for  the  decision  these  words 
express  was  yesterday's,  not  to-day's.  And,  as  Dr. 
Harnack   (whose  they  are)   remarks,  "  That  time  is 


* "  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament,"  p.  313.  In  calling  the 
Bishop  of  Winchester  a  hostile  witness,  I  mean  merely  that 
he  is  on  the  side  of  the  Critics. 

^  The  AthnaJi  accent  in  verse  25  might  possibly  be  explained 
by  the  fact  that  the  Jews  never  read  the  prophecy  of  the 
Seventy  Weeks  in  their  synagogues,  and  any  attempt  to  com- 
pute the  period  is  anathema.  But  to  make  the  Hebrew  accent 
equivalent  to  our  colon  is  a  blunder.  We  should  have  to  read 
verse  2 :  "I,  Daniel,  understood  by  the  books :  the  number  of 
the  years,"  etc. 


28  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

passed.  For  Science  it  was  an  episode  in  which  it 
learned  much,  and  after  which  it  has  much  to  forget." 
And,  as  this  great  writer  adds — and  no  one  can  speak 
with  more  authority — *'  The  oldest  literature  of  the 
Church  in  all  main  points,  and  in  most  details,  from 
the  point  of  view  of  literary  criticism,  is  genuine  and 
trustworthy."  ^ 

"  That  time  is  passed."  Yes,  but  even  those  of  us 
who  are  not  yet  old  can  remember  it.  And  the  bede- 
roU  of  living  scholars  and  theologians  and  critics  con- 
tains no  name  more  eminent  than  that  of  Ferdinand 
Christian  ,Baur.  In  his  day  it  was  the  New  Testa- 
ment which  bore  the  brunt  of  the  sceptical  attack. 
To-day  it  is  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  But  if  "  the  as- 
sured results  of  the  best  scholarship "  of  less  than 
half  a  century  ago  are  now  dismissed  as  '*  an  episode," 
our  children  may  live  to  find  the  Encyclopcedia  Biblica 
and  Dr.  Hastings'  Bible  Dictionary  relegated  to  the 
limbo  of  discredited  and  forgotten  books. 

Having  regard  to  the  acceptance  and  popularity  of 
the  now  discarded  labours  of  "  the  Tubingen  School," 
the  attitude  which  most  of  the  leaders  of  the  secular 
press  maintain  toward  the  pseudo-Criticism  is  as  de- 
plorable as  it  is  amazing.  For  these  enlightened  per- 
sons veto  the  exercise  of  an  independent  judgment 
upon  the  subject,  and  insist  on  our  accepting  the  dicta 
of  the  Critics  with  a  subservience  as  abject  as  that 
rendered  by  Irish  peasants  to  their  priests. 

The  "  assured  results  of  modern  criticism "  are 
rejected  by  some  Critics  of  the  highest  eminence.   The 

^ "  The  Chronology  of  the  Oldest  Christian  Literature." 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  29 

late  Professor  Dillmann  may  be  named  in  that  cate- 
gory, together  with  his  no  less  distinguished  successor 
in  the  chair  of  theology  in  Berlin  University,  Professor 
Hermann  Strack.  On  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic  there 
are  men  of  equal  eminence  as  scholars  and  theologians 
who  repudiate  the  pseudo-Criticism  altogether.  And 
this  being  so,  educated  men  should  either  investigate 
the  matter  for  themselves,  or  else  they  should  hold 
their  judgment  in  suspense. 

Fine  phrases  about  the  assured  results  of  the  latest 
and  best  scholarship  are  therefore  the  merest  clap- 
trap. And  yet,  when  we  seek  to  expose  the  patent 
errors  of  the  pseudo-Criticism,  no  other  reply  is  at- 
tempted by  the  press  organs  of  the  cultured  classes 
which  champion  its  cause.  Professor  Blank  says  so 
and  so,  and  Professor  Blank  is  this  and  that.  Yes : 
"  Brutus  says  he  was  ambitious,  and  Brutus  is  an  hon- 
ourable man." 

"  The  latest  and  best  scholarship."  Yes :  "  Your 
food  will  cost  you  more."  The  tiresome  refrain  by 
which  the  defenders  of  pseudo-Criticism  would  stifle 
discussion  is  as  sapient  as  the  parrot-cry  by  which  the 
defenders  of  pseudo-free  trade  would  prevent  us  from 
coming  face  to  face  with  facts. 

The  parallel  here  suggested  is  a  striking  one.  The 
great  majority  of  thoughtful  people  are  in  favour  of 
genuine  free  trade  and  of  genuine  free  criticism.  But 
in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other,  an  agitation  is  making 
use  of  a  title  to  which  it  has  no  honest  claim.  And  it 
was  just  about  the  time  when  one-sided  free  trade 
gained  ascendency  in  England  that  one-sided  free 
criticism  began  to  make  headway.    The  one  system  is 


30  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

now  upon  its  trial;  and  the  time  seems  opportune  to 
call  the  other  to  account.  If  it  adhered  to  the  methods 
of  those  who,  acting  under  official  responsibility,  con- 
duct judicial  and  police  inquiries,  the  sceptical  crusade 
against  the  .Bible  would  shrink  to  narrow  limits. 


CHAPTER  III 

SUPERIOR  persons  will  no  doubt  object  that  the 
spirit  in  which  this  book  is  written  is  unsuited 
to  a  theological  discussion.  But  the  objectors 
mistake  the  author's  purpose;  which  is  not  to  discuss 
theology,  but  to  explode  fallacies  and  to  expose  frauds. 
Such  is  the  humble  and  not  unfamiliar  task  which  he 
has  here  undertaken. 

And  superior  persons  are  as  unreasonable  as  the 
"  children  sitting  in  the  market-place."  Were  the 
author  to  proceed  to  the  calm  and  sober  discussion  of 
theological  questions,  they  would  tell  him  that,  being 
a  mere  layman,  he  is  not  entitled  to  a  hearing.  But 
the  only  condition  on  which  he  could  obtain  episcopal 
ordination  would  be  his  giving  an  affirmative  answer 
to  the  plain  question,  ''  Do  you  unfeignedly  believe  all 
the  Canonical  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ment ?  "  Once,  however,  a  man  becomes  a  clergyman 
by  giving  this  pledge  solemnly  and  publicly  he  is  en- 
titled to  be  heard,  even  though  he  sets  himself  to  per- 
suade people  that  the  Scriptures  are  not  to  be  believed. 
A  man  who  honestly  accepted  such  a  pledge  and  then 
found  his  career  imperilled  by  a  change  of  views 
might  well  deserve  our  pity.  And  if  he  maintained  a 
studied  silence  on  the  subject,  he  might  not  forfeit  our 
respect.  But  when  men  obtain  ordination  by  declaring 
their  belief  of  the  Bible,  and  then  upon  the  very  house- 

31 


3S  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

tops  proclaim  their  unbelief,  their  attitude  and  conduct 
seem  to  call  for  some  sort  of  apology  or  explanation. 

Let  me  give  an  illustration.  In  a  treatise  written  by 
a  foreign  infidel  nine  passages  are  singled  out  as  being 
the  "  credible  elements  "  in  the  Four  Gospels,  and  of 
these  he  says :  '*  They  prove  that  in  the  person  of 
Jesus  we  have  to  do  with  a  completely  human  being, 
and  that  the  Divine  is  to  be  sought  in  him  only  in  the 
form  in  which  it  is  capable  of  being  found  in  a  man; 
they  also  prove  that  he  really  did  exist,  and  that  the 
Gospels  contain  at  least  some  absolutely  trustworthy 
facts  concerning  him."  ^ 

''A  completely  human  being''  mark.  Not  only  is 
the  Deity  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  denied,  but  His 
Divinity  also,  even  in  the  modified  sense  acknowledged 
by  devout  Unitarians,  Christianity  thus  becomes  a 
huge  fraud,  and  the  Christian's  faith  a  sheer  delusion. 

If  such  statements  were  reproduced  to  warn  us 
against  the  excesses  of  the  pseudo-Criticism  and  the 
blindness  and  folly  of  profane  apostates,  most  of  us 
would  deprecate  their  publication  in  England.  But 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  article  from  which  those  words 
are  quoted  appears  in  a  standard  theological  work, 
bearing  the  imprimatur  of  a  Canon  of  the  Church  of 
England  and  a  Professor  of  Oxford  University. 

And  the  Encyclopcedia  Biblica  differs  only  in  degree 
from  the  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  of  which  Canon 
Driver,  also  a  Professor  of  Oxford,  is  one  of  the 
editors.  These  and  other  kindred  works  designed  to 
destroy  belief  of  the  Bible  are  written  or  edited  by 

^  Encyc.  'Bib.,  art.  "  Gospels."  The  writer  proceeds  to  enu- 
merate nine  credible  passages  in  the  Four  Gospels ! 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  3S 

men  who  command  attention  just  because  of  their 
holding  a  position  gained  by  their  declaring  their  un- 
feigned belief  of  the  Bible. 

Their  attitude  and  conduct,  I  repeat,  are  an  enigma. 
That  an  adequate  explanation  of  them  can  be  given  is 
a  natural  inference  from  their  high  personal  char- 
acter. And  when  they  deign  to  offer  it,  all  fair  and 
generous  minds  will  be  relieved  and  gratified.  Mean- 
while is  it  strange  if  ''  mere  laymen  "  are  perplexed  ? 
For  it  is  certain  that  their  views  of  morality  in  such 
matters  do  not  run  altogether  on  the  same  lines  as 
those  which  prevail  in  the  Clubs,  or  even  in  the  City. 

Let  me  not  be  misunderstood.  I  am  not  impugning 
the  character  of  the  distinguished  ecclesiastics  and 
scholars  who  lead  the  pseudo-Criticism  movement  in 
this  country.  But  I  wish  plainly  to  suggest  that  they 
do  not  view  matters  quite  in  the  same  way  as  other 
men.  My  words  are  not  to  be  misread  as  a  veiled 
attack  on  their  integrity  or  their  honour.  They  are 
intended  as  a  frank  and  open  impeachment  of  their 
judgment.  My  object  is  to  secure  a  fair  field  in  this 
controversy.  Hence  my  protest  against  the  "  Brutus- 
says-he-was-ambitious  "  guillotine  which  is  now  used 
to  silence  all  remonstrance  and  stifle  all  discussion. 

In  certain  quarters,  I  doubt  not,  this  impeachment 
and  this  protest  will  provoke  a  sneer.  I  shall  be  ridi- 
culed for  setting  up  my  own  judgment  against  that  of 
the  scholars  and  the  ecclesiastics.  But  that  is  not  quite 
fair.  Surely  I  have  made  my  meaning  clear.  My  con- 
tention is,  not  that  I  personally  am  better  fitted  than 
they  are  to  deal  with  difficult  questions  of  conflicting 
evidence,  but  that  this  is  true  of  any  man  who,  in  any 


34  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

capacity,  whether  as  judge  or  magistrate,  or  lawyer 
or  juror,  has  experience  of  judicial  inquiries. 

If  I  seem  to  labour  this  point,  it  is  because  the 
success  of  all  religious  frauds — ^the  pseudo-Criticism 
not  excepted — depends  on  preventing  "  the  laity " 
from  thinking  for  themselves.  My  own  case  will  illus- 
trate this.  It  was  Professor  Driver's  "  Introduction 
to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament"  which  first 
shook  my  faith  in  the  Bible.  The  ''  Daniel "  section 
very  specially  influenced  me.  His  case  against  the 
book  seemed  complete;  and  not  being  a  Hebrew 
scholar,  I  felt  myself  incompetent  to  review  his  de- 
cisions. 

It  was  some  time  before  I  recovered  from  the  shock ; 
but  when  I  began  to  regain  my  breath,  my  recovery 
was  hastened  by  a  counter-shock.  The  pivot  on  which 
the  whole  case  turned  was  the  presence  of  Greek 
words  in  the  book ;  and  when  I  discovered  that  on  this 
vital  point  the  argument  was  either  an  anachronism  or 
a  puerility,^  I  determined  to  prove  the  matter  further. 

But  what  about  the  Hebrew?  Lawyers  have  too 
much  sense  to  waste  time  over  anything  conceded  by 
the  other  side.  And  while  to  his  assertion  that  ''  the 
Greek  words  demand  '*  a  verdict  against  Daniel,  Pro- 
fessor Driver  adds  that  "  the  Hebrew  supports "  the 
same  conclusion,  Professor  Cheyne,  quite  as  compe- 
tent a  Hebraist,  and  far  more  uncompromising  as  a 
critic,  expressly  declares  that  "  From  the  Hebrew  of 

*  Canon  Driver's  words  are,  "  The  Greek  words  demand, 
the  Hebrew  supports,  and  the  Aramaic  permits','  a  late  date. 
The  whole  argument,  therefore,  turns  on  the  presence  of  the 
Greek  words. 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  35 

the  book  of  Daniel  no  important  inference  as  to  its 
date  can  be  safely  drawn." 

This  was  enough  for  me.  The  philology  being  thus 
ruled  out,  I  was  face  to  face  with  allegations  of  fact, 
and  inferences  from  evidence.  And,  inflated  with  con- 
ceit engendered  by  remembering  that,  in  problems  of 
that  kind,  people  quite  as  clever  as  the  professors 
sometimes  seemed  to  value  my  opinion  and  advice,  I 
decided  to  examine  the  whole  matter  for  myself. 

My  judgment  had  been  overawed  by  the  great 
authority  of  Dr.  Driver's  name.  For  I  supposed  his 
treatise  to  be  the  result  of  independent  inquiry  and 
thought.  My  next  shock  was  the  discovery  that  it 
was  merely  a  reproduction  of  the  case  made  out  by 
the  foreign  Rationalists  long  ago. 

And  when  this  was  followed  by  the  further  dis- 
covery that  recent  archseological  research  had  proved 
that  his  main  "  Historical  Errors  "were  not  errors  at 
all — that,  for  example,  Cyrus's  own  inscriptions  tell 
us  that  Belshazzar  actually  ruled  in  Babylon,  as  the 
Bible  says  he  did,  and  that  he  was  killed  when  the 
Mede  who  commanded  the  invading  army  captured  the 
city  and  set  up  the  Persian  rule — I  began  to  think  it 
was  high  time  to  inquire  what  could  be  said  upon  the 
other  side.  And  my  efforts  were  rewarded  by  finding 
an  array  of  solid  facts,  as  set  forth  in  the  preceding 
chapter,  sufficient  to  convince  any  competent  tribunal 
that  the  "  critical  hypothesis  "  is  untenable. 

I  appeal  to  my  readers,  therefore,  to  use  their  own 
judgment  in  this  controversy.  And  when  superior 
persons  attempt  to  overawe  them  by  the  "  Brutus- 
says-he-was-ambitious  "  refrain  about  "  the  latest  and 


S6  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

best  scholarship,"  let  them  remember,  first,  that  the 
scholarship  is  neither  good  nor  modern ;  and,  secondly, 
that  it  is  not  a  question  of  scholarship  at  all,  but  of 
evidence,  requiring  no  knowledge  of  Hebrew  what- 
ever, but  only  intelligence  and  shrewdness,  and  what 
is  called  a  "  level  head." 

There  is  absolutely  nothing  new  in  this  sceptical 
crusade  against  the  Bible.  English  scholars  have 
made  no  contribvition  to  it,  save  only  the  sanction  of 
their  names.  And  when,  half  a  century  ago,  it  began 
to  leaven  religious  thought  in  this  country,  its  course 
was  predicted  by  those  who  knew  its  progress  in  the 
land  of  its  origin. 

If  a  man  of  good  repute  is  bluntly  denounced  as  a 
drunkard  or  a  rogue  by  one  who  is  known  to  be  his 
enemy,  his  character  may  be  left  to  take  care  of  itself. 
But  if  a  charge  of  dishonesty  or  excess  is  made  with 
great  reserve  and  seeming  reluctance  by  one  who  poses 
as  his  friend,  and  who  declares  his  esteem  for  him  and 
his  earnest  wish  to  screen  him,  most  people  will  take 
for  granted  there  is  some  foundation  for  it. 

And  so  it  is  here.  When  foreign  sceptics  assailed 
the  Bible  they  were  ignored.  But  now  that  English 
Christians  join  in  the  attack,  people  begin  to  think 
there  must  be  something  in  it.  Among  the  educated 
classes  indeed  there  is  not  one  person  in  a  hundred 
who  accepts  their  conclusions.  But  there  is  not  one 
person  in  a  thousand  who  is  not  in  some  degree  in- 
fluenced by  their  teaching.  And  as  a  result  the  cul- 
tured classes  are  drifting  towards  a  kind  of  religious 
agnosticism.  And  when  these  pestilent  errors  have 
fully   penetrated  to  the   unthinking  multitude,   they 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  87 

will  lead  to  an  agnosticism  with  no  saving  element 
whatever — an  agnosticism  which  will  soon  develop 
into  practical  atheism.  In  this  generation  the  pseudo- 
Criticism  is  undermining  the  faith  of  the  Church;  in 
the  next  it  may  affect  the  fabric  of  Society. 


CHAPTER  IV, 

WHEN  the  Fenians  planned  their  second 
raid  on  Canada  no  fears  were  entertained 
as  to  the  final  issue  of  the  plot.  But  the 
defence  of  a  frontier  of  more  than  a  thousand  miles 
was  an  impossible  task  for  the  Dominion  Government. 
I  undertook,  therefore,  to  ascertain  at  what  point  the 
raiders  meant  to  cross.  How  I  succeeded,  with  Le 
Caron's  help,  is  now  a  matter  of  history ;  and  a  move- 
ment which  threatened  much  injury  to  property,  and 
possibly  loss  of  life,  ended  in  a  fiasco. 

In  the  guerilla  war  now  raging  round  the  Bible  the 
sacred  volume  lies  open  to  attack  on  every  side.  But 
here  the  parallel  ends.  For  it  is  impossible  to  fix  the 
field  on  which  the  battle  must  be  joined.  The  pending 
controversy,  therefore,  finds  a  fitter  illustration  in  the 
final  stages  of  the  late  Boer  War.  On  all  the  main 
questions  raised  by  the  pseudo-Critics  they  have  been 
refuted  by  books  as  scholarly  and  able  as  any  which 
they  themselves  have  written.  It  is  not  their  way, 
however,  to  make  either  admissions  or  rejoinders. 
But  they  turn  up  again  unabashed.  And,  as  we  have 
seen,  their  chief  successes  have  been  largely  due  to 
their  habit  of  "  wearing  khaki." 

It  taxed  the  energies  of  nearly  a  quarter  of  a 
million  Imperial  troops  to  suppress  the  Boers.  To 
suppress   the   Critics   would   be   a   task   of   infinitely 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  39 

greater  difficulty;  and  I  am  not  so  vain  as  to  suppose 
that  this  volume  will  have  any  effect  in  that  direction. 
But  many  a  skirmish  that  failed  to  crush  De  Wet  did 
much  to  cheer  the  loyalists  in  South  Africa,  and  pos- 
sibly these  pages  may  serve  in  some  little  measure  to 
encourage  perplexed  and  timorous  Christians. 

My  method  so  far  has  been  clear,  and  I  wish  to 
make  my  method  in  the  sequel  quite  as  plain.  It  is 
not  my  purpose  to  discuss  Biblical  problems,  save 
incidentally,  and  as  the  subject  may  require;  but  I 
propose  to  test  the  pseudo-Criticism  by  its  results  in 
the  case  of  certain  specially  selected  representative 
men. 

First,  however,  some  prefatory  words  of  another 
kind  may  be  opportune.  Let  no  one  suppose  that  the 
Bible  itself  has  suffered  by  this  crusade  against  its 
authority,  or  that  the  defence  of  the  Bible  is  a  lost  or 
discredited  cause.  Some  of  us  indeed,  whose  faith 
has  been  endangered  by  this  scepticism,  have  emerged 
from  the  ordeal  with  a  deeper  confidence  in  the  Bible 
than  before — deeper,  because  more  intelligent. 

But  let  us  be  careful  to  distinguish  between  the 
Bible  itself,  and  the  meaning  which  men  put  upon  its 
words.  If  orthodoxy  were  not  so  self-sufficient  in 
interpreting  the  Scriptures,  heterodoxy  would  make 
less  headway  than  it  does.  For  many  a  heresy  is  due 
to  recoil  from  some  perversion  of  the  truth.  As  a 
recent  writer  has  pleaded,  even  an  apostasy  so  extreme 
as  that  which  found  expression  in  the  words  ecrasez 
Vinfame,  denoted  hatred,  not  of  Christ,  but  of  super- 
stition; not  of  the  Christianity  of  the  New  Testament, 
but   of  the   religion   of   Christendom — "  the   religion 


40  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

which  lit  the  fires  of  Smithfield  and  prompted  the 
tortures  of  the  Inquisition."  ^ 

The  well-worn  theme  of  the  Creation  story  may 
illustrate  my  meaning.  How  many  there  are  who  have 
turned  away  from  it  because  they  were  taught  to  read 
into  it  the  figment  that  on  a  certain  Sunday  morning 
in  the  year  b.  c.  4004,  the  Supreme  looked  out  upon 
the  dark  vault  of  illimitable  empty  space,  and  that  by 
the  Friday  evening  following  he  had  started  this 
universe  of  ours  as  a  "  going  concern  "  ! 

Take  another  illustration  of  a  different  kind.  The 
sixtieth  chapter  of  Isaiah,  tradition  has  labelled  *'  En- 
largement of  the  Church."  Such  an  exegesis  supports 
the  worst  pretensions  of  the  Church  of  Rome;  and  it 
justifies  the  most  ''  advanced  "  of  the  Critics  in  their 
unbelief.  If  the  passage  is  meant  to  describe  the  re- 
turn from  the  Exile,  it  is  but  the  ravings  of  a  fanatic. 
And  to  regard  it  as  a  prophecy  about  the  Church  of 
Christendom,  is  profanely  to  ascribe  to  God  the  lan- 
guage of  wild  hyperbole  and  senseless  exaggeration. 

Again,  let  us  remember — I  make  use  of  borrowed 
^ords — that  ''  no  book  can  be  written  on  behalf  of  the 
Bible  like  the  Bible  itself."  But  the  witness  of  the 
Bible,  like  all  Divine  rewards,  is  only  for  diligent 
seekers.  "Orthodoxy"  has  prepared  the  way  for 
scepticism,  not  merely  by  misinterpreting  the  Bible, 
but  by  neglect  of  it.  The  study  of  prophecy  has  been 
disparaged,  and  the  teaching  of  the  types  has  been 
ignored.  No  one  who  has  studied  the  history  of 
Divine  prophecy  could  be  misled  by  the  theory  that 
the  prophetic  books  were  earlier  than  the  Pentateuch. 

*  Mr.  S.  G.  Tallentyre's  "Life  of  Voltaire,"  vol.  ii.  p.  no. 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  41 

And  no  one  acquainted  with  the  marvellous  system  of 
Biblical  typology,  to  which  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
gives  the  clue,  would  tolerate  the  figment  that  the 
Mosaic  books  are  forgeries. 

"  Science  is  only  in  its  infancy  "  is  the  dictum  of 
one  who  has  attained  to  rank  and  fame  in  the  pursuit 
of  it.^  And  this  is  no  less  true  of  our  apprehension  of 
the  Bible.  No  book,  indeed,  is  so  little  understood. 
And  in  forecasting  the  advance  which  future  years 
will  make  in  knowledge  of  the  work  of  God  in  nature, 
the  same  writer  uses  language  which  we  may  adopt 
in  regard  to  the  Word  of  God  in  revelation :  **  Still 
before  them  will  loom  the  majestic  vision  of  the  In- 
finite, and  still  will  their  men  of  highest  knowledge 
and  deepest  insight  confess  they  are  but  as  children 
who  have  learned  to  play  on  the  seashore,  while  the 
great  ocean  of  truth  still  stretches  before  them  un- 
explored :  still  will  they  feel  that  they  are  but  dimly 
groping  after  the  great  truths  of  God." 

This  leads  me  to  emphasise  a  further  warning. 
The  Christian  must  be  on  his  guard  against  allowing 
the  initial  assumption  of  the  Critics,  that  the  Bible  is 
to  be  treated  as  a  purely  human  book.  I  have  used 
elsewhere  the  illustration  of  the  Lincoln  church  ba- 
zaar, where  two  stolen  purses  were  found  in  the 
Bishop's  pocket.  If  the  Bishop  had  been  dealt  with 
like  a  crossing-sweeper  or  a  shoe-black,  he  would  cer- 
tainly have  been  sent  to  the  lock-up.  And  such  treat- 
ment would  not  have  been  worse  than  that  which  the 
Critics  accord  to  the  Bible. 

And  let  it  not  be  overlooked  that  when  ''  Higher 
*  Sir  Oliver  Lodge. 


42  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

Criticism"  claims  to  rule  out  miracles  it  passes  en- 
tirely beyond  the  limits  of  its  proper  province.  Eich- 
horn  himself  defined  it  to  mean  the  analysis  of  a  book 
into  its  earlier  and  its  later  elements.  This  leaves  un- 
touched every  question  as  to  the  nature  of  the  book 
thus  submitted  to  examination.  The  present  wave  of 
scepticism  is  not  caused  by  the  search-light  of  a  true 
criticism,  but  by  the  illicit  excesses  of  a  false  criticism 
designed  to  throw  discredit  upon  miracles,  not  ex- 
cepting Inspiration  and  the  Virgin  birth — the  very 
foundations  of  Christianity. 

Miracles?  the  lowest  and  stupidest  type  of  anthro- 
pomorphist  is  the  man  whose  god  can  do  nothing  that 
he  could  not  do  himself.  And  even  the  disciples  of 
Hume  now  avoid  their  master's  dictum  about  violation 
of  natural  law.  Indeed,  as  the  late  Duke  of  Argyll 
told  Professor  Huxley,  the  antithesis  between  natural 
and  supernatural  is  not  only  unknown  to  revelation, 
but  it  is  "  very  bad  science,  and  still  worse  philos- 
ophy." What  we  call  a  miracle  implies  the  presence 
of  some  agent,  or  the  exercise  of  some  power,  that  is 
more  than  human.  To  challenge  and  sift  the  evidence 
is  therefore  proof  of  shrewdness  and  wisdom.  But  a 
man  who  rejects  a  miracle  on  a  priori  grounds,  and 
refuses  to  examine  the  .evidence,  must  obviously  be 
either  an  atheist  or  a  fool.^ 

And,  if  this  be  admitted,  the  great  miracle  of  the 

^Hume  admitted  that  the  evidence  for  one  of  the  most 
notable  of  the  Jansenist  miracles  in  France  was  complete  on 
every  point  on  which  he  challenged  the  New  Testament  mira- 
cles. But  yet  he  rejected  it  on  purely  a  priori  grounds;  and 
from  his  standpoint  he  was  possibly  right. 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  43 

Incarnation,  so  plainly  revealed  in  Scripture,  presents 
no  special  difficulties.  It  is  free  indeed  from  those 
elements  of  incredibility  attaching  to  that  other  mir- 
acle which  we  all  accept — the  new  birth  of  a  sinner 
by  the  Spirit  of  God.  And  it  will  probably  be  found 
that  those  who  regard  the  "  Virgin  birth  "  as  a  mere 
legend,  regard  the  ''  new  birth  "  as  a  mere  theory. 

I  will  venture  to  offer  a  novel  statement  of  this 
question.  In  giving  a  legal  opinion  a  lawyer  neither 
questions  nor  confirms  the  facts  set  out  in  the  case  sub- 
mitted to  him.  He  assumes  them,  and  his  opinion  is 
based  on  that  assumption.  Now  I  should  like  to 
submit  the  following  question  to  the  judgment  of 
some  upright  and  intelligent  infidel,  who  would  answer 
it  with  the  impartiality  of  a  lawyer  dealing  with  a 
**  case."  The  Christian  system  rests  on  the  fact  that 
the  Nazarene  was  the  Son  of  God ;  assuming  that  fact, 
is  there  anything  unreasonable  in  the  hypothesis  of  the 
Virgin  birth?  His  answer  would  be  :  If  the  "  fact  "  is 
to  be  accepted  the  birth  was  presumably  miraculous, 
and  the  suggested  hypothesis  is  a  reasonable  one.^ 

That  the  child  of  a  woman  was  the  Son  of  God  is 
a  great  mystery ;  that  the  child  of  Joseph  the  carpenter 
was  the  Son  of  God  is  sheer  nonsense.  No  free  and 
fearless  thinker,  therefore,  rejects  belief  in  the  Virgin 
birth,  and  yet  maintains  belief  in  the  Deity  of  Christ.^ 

^  Those  who  refuse  belief  in  a  primeval  revelation  to  ac- 
count for  the  legend  of  a  Virgin  birth  in  Old  World  paganism, 
must  find  in  that  legend  a  proof  that  belief  in  a  Divine  off- 
spring necessarily  implies  belief  in  a  miraculous  birth. 

^  Of  course  the  expression  may  still  be  used  in  a  loose  and 
figurative  sense,  as,  e.  g.,  by  Dr.  Harnack. 


44  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

Adam  was  the  son  of  God  in  a  sense  in  which  no 
one  of  his  posterity  can  claim  the  title.  Christ  was  the 
Son  of  God  in  a  sense  far  higher  still.  For  Adam 
came  into  existence  by  the  Hat  of  the  Creator;  while 
our  Divine  Lord  could  speak  to  the  Father  of  "  the 
glory  which  he  had  with  Him  before  the  world  was."  ^ 
Hence  the  words,  "  The  first  man  is  of  the  earth, 
earthy ;  the  second  Man  is  of  heaven."  * 

In  doctrine  as  in  morals,  one  fault  leads  to  another. 
And  the  denial  of  the  Virgin  birth  follows  upon  the 
figment  of  redemption  by  incarnation — that  evil  leaven 
of  Greek  philosophy.  The  nature  which  He  took  was 
not  that  of  sinful  man — albeit  "  He  was  made  in  the 
likeness  of  sinful  flesh  " — but  of  man  as  he  came  from 
the  hand  of  God. 

And  as  for  Inspiration,  the  real  question  here  is 
whether  we  possess  a  Divine  revelation;  and,  as  has 
been  justly  said,  the  idea  of  a  revelation  is  involved  in 
the  conception  of  a  living  God.  For  here,  as  the  same 
writer  argues,  "  Agnosticism  assumes  a  double  incom- 
petence— the  incompetence  not  only  of  man  to  know 
God,  but  of  God  to  make  Himself  known.  But  the 
denial  of  competence  is  the  negation  of  Deity.  For 
the  God  who  could  not  speak  would  not  be  rational, 
and  the  God  who  would  not  speak  would  not  be 
moral."' 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  not  inspiration  that  tries 
the  Christian's  faith,  but  its  strange  limits;  not  mir- 
acles, but  the  absence  of  miracles.     Why  is  God  so 

^  JoHn  xvii.  5.  '  I  Cor.  xv.  47,  R.  V. 

^The  words  are  Principal  Fairbairn's  ("The  Place  of 
Christ  in  Modern  Theology,"  p.  386). 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  45 

silent?  How  is  it  that  Almighty  power  is  passive  in 
a  world  where  sorrow  and  suffering  prevail,  and  sin 
and  wrong  are  rampant  ?  ^  To  these  difficulties  en- 
lightened faith  can  find  an  answer.  But  it  does  not 
lie  upon  the  surface.  It  must  be  sought  for  as  men 
dig  for  gold.  And  even  when  it  has  been  grasped,  and 
reason  bows  before  the  teaching  of  revelation,  the 
cravings  of  the  inner  being  still  refuse  to  be  satisfied, 
and  "  heart  and  flesh  cry  out  for  the  Living  God." 

*  This  is  the  main  subject  of  the  author's  "  Silence  of  God." 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  pioneers  of  the  Higher  Criticism,  as  al- 
ready noticed,  turned  aside  to  undertake  the 
task  of  commending  the  Bible  to  the  Ration- 
alists. Their  aim  was  laudable,  but  the  method  by 
which  they  sought  to  attain  it  was  utterly  mistaken. 
For  in  the  sphere  of  faith,  as  in  that  of  morals,  all 
compromise  is  impossible. 

But  the  parallel  suggested  by  these  words  must  not 
be  pressed.  The  religion  of  the  superstitious  sceptic, 
who  swallows  a  camel  while  he  strains  at  a  gnat,  is 
deserving  only  of  contempt.  But  I  would  dissociate 
myself  from  those  who  despise  the  honest  and  fair 
agnostic.  Science  and  religion  are  both  alike  intoler- 
ant of  all  who  refuse  to  accept  their  decrees.  But  the 
intelligent  and  sincere  Rationalist  is  entitled  to  respect 
and  courtesy. 

In  this  spirit  it  is  that  I  would  enter  on  the  consid- 
eration of  the  position  and  views  of  one  of  the  great 
scholars  and  thinkers  of  the  day — I  refer  to  Dr.  Har- 
nack.  Principal  of  the  University  of  Berlin.  And 
"What  is  Christianity?"  is  the  work  which  I  select 
for  analysis.  In  Germany,  of  course,  the  book  is 
widely  read,  and  a  translation  has  introduced  it  to  the 
English  public.  My  purpose  is  to  show  that  the  author 
of  this  volume  has  achieved  the  task  which  Eichhorn 

46 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  47 

attempted,  and  that,  in  his  case,  the  pseudo  "  Higher 
Criticism  "  has  led  to  absolute  Rationalism. 

The  note  which  dominates  the  treatise  is  struck  on 
the  opening  page.  His  purpose  is  "  to  remind  man- 
kind "  "  that  a  man  of  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  once 
stood  in  their  midst."  Not  that  "  a  man  of  the  name 
of  Jesus,"  who  "  once  stood  in  their  midst,"  is  the 
Christ,  the  Lord  of  Glory — this  is  the  very  foundation 
of  Christianity — but  that  the  life  and  teaching  of  "  the 
historic  Jesus  "  deserve  the  attention  of  mankind. 

A  man  of  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ.  Not  only  does 
the  author  fail  to  acknowledge  Him  as  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  but  throughout  this  book  he  abstains  from 
using  even  the  title  that  is  so  familiar  to  the  Christian. 
We  need  not  be  surprised,  therefore,  at  his  telling  us 
that  the  question,  "  What  is  Christianity  ?  "  does  not 
find  answer  in  the  Divine  revelation  of  which  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  sum  and  substance,  but  resolves 
itself  into  "  the  purely  historical  theme :  What  is  the 
Christian  religion  ?  "  ^ 

The  spiritual  Christian  has  learned  to  distinguish 
between  Christianity  and  "  the  Christian  religion,"  but 
Dr.  Harnack  makes  no  such  distinction.  For  not  even 
"  the  historic  Jesus "  Himself  will  afford  ''  the  ma- 
terials "  for  his  inquiry ;  "  we  must  include  the  first 
generation  of  His  disciples  as  well."  ^  Nor  will  even 
this  suffice.  For,  he  tells  us,  "  Jesus  Christ  and  His 
disciples  were  situated  in  their  day  just  as  we  are  situ- 
ated in  ours ;  that  is  to  say,  their  feelings,  their 
thoughts,  their  judgments,  and  their  efforts  were 
bounded  by  the  horizon  and  the  framework  in  which 
'pp.  6,  9.  'p.  10. 


48  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

their  own  nation  was  set,  and  by  its  condition  at 
the  time."  ^  This  being  so,  our  "  materials  "  must  not 
be  Hmited  even  to  the  Hfe  and  teaching  of  "  Jesus 
Christ  and  His  disciples  " :  to  ascertain  aright  what  is 
Christianity  "  we  must  include  all  the  later  products 
of  its  spirit."^ 

But,  of  course,  "  Jesus  Christ "  and  His  "  message  " 
are  of  principal  importance.  What,  then,  are  ''  our 
authorities "  here  ?  The  answer  is,  in  words,  "  the 
first  three  Gospels."  ^  "  In  words,"  I  say ;  for  let  no 
one  suppose  that  he  may  accept  any  one  of  the  three 
as  trustworthy.  Before  the  worshipper  can  betake 
himself  to  the  sanctuary  he  must  repair  to  the  pro- 
fessor's classroom  to  learn  how  much  or  how  little  of 
all  on  which  his  faith  rests  has  escaped  in  the  general 
wreck. 

Our  first  staggering  blow  will  be  the  discovery  that 
"  the  history  of  Jesus'  birth  "  is  worthless.  "  Two  of 
the  Gospels  do,  it  is  true,  contain  it,"  but  yet  "  we  may 
disregard  it."*  The  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ, 
the  Son  of  God,  must  thus  give  place  to  Jesus  of 
Nazareth,  the  son  of  Joseph;  a  man  whose  mind  was 
warped  by  a  petty  provincial  environment,^  whose 
religious  teaching,  therefore,  taxes  our  ingenuity  to 
discriminate  between  the  element  of  kernel  and  of 
husk;^  a  man  who  beHeved  in  such  ''absurdities"  as 
"  stories  of  demons," '  and  whose  views  on  social 
questions  were  biassed  by  "his  eschatological  ideas 
and  his  particular  horizon."  ^ 

*p.  12.  'p.  10.  'p.  19. 

*p.  30.  ^p.  12.  'p.  55. 

'p.  58.  ®p.  lOI. 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  4d 

The  next  blow  to  faith  will  be  the  discovery  that  the 
.resurrection  is  a  mere  "  belief."  Here  the  language 
used  is  that  of  Christianity,  but  that  is  all.  "  .What- 
ever may  have  happened  at  the  grave  and  in  the  matter 
of  the  appearances,  one  thing  is  certain,"  we  are  told, 
''  this  grave  was  the  birthplace  of  the  indestructible 
belief  that  death  is  vanquished,  that  there  is  a  life 
eternal."  '  ''  Whatever  may  have  happened  " ;  for,  as 
the  author  says,  "  It  is  not  our  business  to  defend 
either  the  view  which  was  taken  of  the  death,  or  the 
idea  that  He  had  risen  again."  ^ 

"  Views  "  and  ''  ideas,"  not  facts.  The  only  facts 
left  us  are  that  there  was  once  "  a  man  called  Jesus 
Christ,"  and  that  He  died  upon  a  cross.  "  The  convic- 
tion that  obtained  in  the  Apostolic  age  that  the  Lord 
had  really  appeared  after  His  death  on  the  cross  may," 
Dr.  Harnack  tells  us,  "  be  regarded  as  a  coefficient."  ' 
It  is  not  that  the  fact  of  the  appearances  was  ''  a  co- 
efficient," but  merely  the  belief  that  there  were  appear- 
ances. And  this  distinction  is  emphasised  by  the  con- 
text. For  this  statement  immediately  follows  a  refer- 
ence to  the  "  coefficient "  of  a  mistaken  expectation  of 
Christ's  near  return. 

*'  The  Christian  religion,"  so-called,  abounds  with 
delusions  and  frauds,  and  Dr.  Harnack's  "  Christian- 
ity "  is  no  better.  "  That  Jesus'  death  on  the  cross 
was  one  of  expiation  "  is  also  an  "  idea."  "  It  belongs 
to  a  class  of  ideas  that  "  respond  to  a  religious  need."  ^ 
And,  as  the  author  adds,  "  History  has  decided  in  its 
favour,  and  we  are  beginning  to  get  in  touch  with  it." 

»p.  162.      «p.  155.     ^p.  173.      *9-  156.      *p.  157. 


50  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

More  than  this,  "  Everywhere  that  the  just  man 
suffers,  an  atonement  is  made  which  puts  us  to  shame 
and  purifies  us."^  "These  are  the  ideas  which  have 
been  suggested  by  Christ's  death,"  and  "  they  have 
taken  shape  in  the  firm  conviction  that  by  His  death 
in  suffering  He  did  a  definitive  work;  that  He  did  it 
'  for  us.'  "  ' 

Then  there  are  the  miracles.  A  friend  of  mine  once 
averted  a  disaster  by  "  heahng  "  a  man  upon  whom 
the  safety  of  a  party  of  travellers  depended.  Their 
hale,  rough,  mountain  guide  was  seized  with  a  sudden 
illness,  and  lay  down  to  die.  By  the  use  of  a  strong 
will,  and  a  bottle  of  hair-wash  from  his  valise,  he  had 
the  man  on  his  feet  again  in  half  an  hour.  I  once  got 
him  to  tell  the  whole  story  to  the  late  Sir  Andrew 
Clark,  and  I  remember  well  the  response  it  evoked, 
uttered  in  Sir  Andrew's  staccato  style :  ''  I  thoroughly 
believe  in  a  gift  of  healing."  So  also  does  Professor 
Harnack;  and  thus  he  is  able  to  accept  what  I  may 
call  the  everyday  miracles  of  the  ministry.  For,  he 
tells  us,  "  Historical  science  in  the  last  generation  has 
taken  a  great  step  in  advance  by  learning  to  pass  a 
more  intelligent  and  benevolent  judgment  on  those 
narratives."  ^ 

And  yet,  with  strange  inconsistency,  he  writes : — 

"It  is  not  miracles  that  matter;  the  question  on  which 
everything  turns  is  whether  we  are  helplessly  yoked  to  an 
inexorable  necessity,  or  whether  a  God  exists  who  rules  and 
governs,  and  whose  power  to  compel  Nature  we  can  move  by 
prayer  and  make  a  part  of  our  experience."  * 

>p.  159.  'p.  159.  *P.  24.  *p.  30. 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  51 

Now  this  entirely  explodes  the  infidel  argument 
against  miracles.  For  the  seeming  force  of  that  argu- 
ment depends  on  the  fallacy  that  a  miracle  is  a 
violation  of  the  laws  of  Nature,  whereas  in  fact  it  is 
but  "  the  introduction  of  a  new  agent  possessing  new 
powers."  Once  we  acknowledge  a  God  who  rules  and 
governs  and  can  *'  compel  Nature,"  ^  the  credibility  of 
Divine  miracles  resolves  itself  into  a  question  of  evi- 
dence, and  a  refusal  on  a  priori  grounds  to  examine 
the  evidence  betokens  sheer  materialism  or  stupidity. 

Take  Joshua's  miracle,  for  example.  "  That  the 
earth  in  its  course  stood  still  "  (Dr.  Harnack  declares) 
"  we  shall  never  again  believe."  -  Some  of  us  who  did 
once  believe  it  have  given  it  up.  For  the  Bible  does 
not  state  it.  Joshua's  prayer  was  that  the  sun  might 
*'  be  silent."  And  the  record  of  what  follows  explains 
this  Hebrew  figure  of  speech :  "  The  sun  was  silent  in 
the  half  of  the  heaven,  and  hasted  not  to  go  down  a 
whole  day."  It  is  incongruous  to  say  that  "  the  sun 
stood  still  and  hasted  not  to  go  down."  When  we  say 
that  a  man  did  not  haste  to  catch  a  train,  we  imply,  not 
that  he  sat  down,  but  that  he  went  to  the  station 
slowly.  And  so  here :  the  sun  lingered  in  the  [visible] 
half  ^  of  the  heaven.    And  if  we  believe  in  a  God  who 

^  Nature  is,  of  course,  but  one  sphere  of  God's  government, 
and,  therefore,  to  speak  of  God's  "  compelling  Nature  "  seems 
incongruous.  Upon  this  whole  question  of  miracles  I  take  the 
liberty  of  referring  to  my  book,  "  The  Silence  of  God,"  es- 
pecially chapter  iii. 

'p.  28. 

^  The  word  is  so  rendered  with  rare  exceptions  in  all  its 
one  hundred  and  seventeen  occurrences.  The  rendering  "  in 
the  midst "  suggests  the  grotesque  idea  that  at  noonday  Joshua 


5^  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

has  power  over  "  Nature,"  His  retarding  the  rotation 
of  the  earth  does  not  seem  more  wonderful  than  an 
engineer's  "  slowing  down "  the  great  wheel  of  a 
steam  engine. 

Professor  Harnack's  purpose  being  to  reduce  the 
facts  and  the  phenomena  of  what  he  calls  "  Chris- 
tianity "  to  the  level  of  Rationalism,  he  reads  the  New 
Testament  with  a  predetermination  to  refuse  every- 
thing which  clashes  with  his  own  system.  Not  only, 
therefore,  is  the  story  of  the  birth  rejected,  but  also 
that  wonderful  narrative  which  he  dismisses  as  "  a 
curious  story  of  a  temptation."  And  the  Messiah- 
ship,  the  eternal  Sonship,  and  the  Atonement  are,  like 
the  Resurrection,  relegated  to  the  category  of  "  ideas." 

The  Gospel  of  John,  of  course,  goes  overboard.  It 
"  does  not  emanate  from  the  Apostle  John,"  and  it 
"  cannot  be  taken  as  an  historical  authority  in  the 
ordinary  sense  of  the  word."  ^  The  genuineness  of 
the  Fourth  Gospel  is  too  well  established  to  be  dis- 
missed in  this  jaunty  way  by  a  wave  of  the  hand.  But 
let  that  pass.  A  sceptic  both  by  temperament  and  by: 
training,  I  propose  to  examine  his  scheme  from  the 
standpoint  of  thorough,  relentless  scepticism. 

And  let  no  one  be  either  stumbled  or  offended  by 
my  words.  When  I  here  speak  of  "  Jesus "  I  am 
referring  to  Dr.  Harnack's  Buddha,  the  mythical 
founder  and  hero  of  his  Neo-Christianity. 

gave  a  drill-sergeant  command  to  the  sun  to  halt,  and  it  stood 
still !     Common  sense  might  tell  us  that  the  need  would  not 
arise  till  the  sun  was  sinking,  and  it  became  clear  that  the 
approach  of  night  would  enable  the  enemy  to  escape, 
'p.  19. 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  53 

"  The  teaching  of  Jesus  "  is  the  basis  of  it.  But 
what  do  we  know  of  His  teaching?  Let  me  test  this 
by  an  illustration.  The  Judge's  charge  to  the  Grand 
Jury  in  opening  the  assizes  for  a  county  always  com- 
mands attention  in  Ireland.  And  for  some  years  I 
used  to  supply  the  leading  Dublin  newspapers  with 
reports  of  all  such  charges  delivered  on  the  circuit  to 
which  I  was  attached  as  a  barrister.  I  could  not  write 
shorthand ;  but  by  recording  the  key-words  of  every 
sentence  I  was  able  to  furnish  a  verbatim  report  from 
memory.  On  the  only  occasion  that  my  accuracy  was 
ever  challenged,  the  Judge  himself  confirmed  it  when 
appealed  to.  I  found,  however,  that  if  even  a  few 
hours  intervened  the  spell  was  broken,  and  I  could  not 
attempt  more  than  a  precis.  And  after  the  lapse  of 
months,  or  even  weeks,  I  should  have  hesitated  to 
supply  a  precis.  But  here  we  are  asked  to  believe  that 
men  who  had  no  special  aptitude  for  such  a  task,  and 
who,  we  are  told,  are  not  always  to  be  trusted  even 
when  they  record  events  that  occurred  before  their 
eyes,  transcribed,  long  after  they  were  uttered,  the 
very  words  of  prolonged  discourses,  such  as  the  Ser- 
mon on  the  Mount.  Was  there  ever  a  suggestion  more 
utterly  unworthy  of  acceptance  by  sensible  people !  Is 
it  not  clear  as  light  that  Matthew  is  the  real  author  of 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  ?  ^ 

But  this  is  not  all.    Put  the  question  to  any  Chris- 

^  Of  course  I  am  arguing  on  Dr.  Harnack's  assumption 
that  the  Gospels  are  mere  human  documents,  and  not  divinely 
inspired.  The  question  of  inspiration  is  too  large  for  dis- 
cussion here.  I  beg  to  refer  to  my  book,  "  The  Bible  and 
Modern  Criticism,"  especially  chaps,  vii.  and  xiii. 


54  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

tian,  "  If  you  were  forced  to  give  up  three  of  the 
Gospels,  which  would  you  retain  ?  "  and  the  prompt 
and  unequivocal  reply  is  always  "  John."  To  the 
Christian  the  words  of  the  great  Teacher  as  recorded 
in  the  Fourth  Gospel  are  more  precious  than  all  the 
rest.  But  "  the  author  of  it  " — Dr.  Harnack  tells  us — 
"  drew  up  the  discourses  himself,  and  illustrated  great 
thoughts  by  imaginary  situations." 

This  suggests  a  conclusion  of  the  most  startling 
kind.  If  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  not  genuine  and  authen- 
tic, the  fact  confronts  us  that  the  ''  discourses "  of 
*'  that  sublimest  of  sublime  books  "  have,  throughout 
the  whole  Christian  era,  exercised  a  wider  and  pro- 
founder  influence  over  the  minds  and  hearts  of  men 
than  the  sayings  of  ''  Jesus  "  Himself.  It  has  often 
happened  in  the  world's  history  that  the  real  leader  in 
a  great  movement  has  been  overshadowed  by  someone 
whose  personal  magnetism  has  secured  for  him  greater 
popularity. 

And  this  unknown  disciple  is  not  the  only  claimant 
to  pre-eminence.  That  the  author  of  this  Gospel,  which 
some  would  call  the  greatest  book  in  the  world — a 
book,  moreover,  written  at  such  a  time — should  not 
have  left  even  a  tradition  of  his  personality  or  name, 
is  a  supposition  which  tries  even  a  trained  capacity 
for  misbelief.  But  his  anonymity  would  tell  against 
him  in  a  plebiscite.  In  Paul,  on  the  other  hand,  we 
have  a  man  whose  matchless  life-story  lies  before  us, 
not  only  in  his  own  Epistles,  but  in  the  narrative  of 
Luke.  His  unreserved  and  passionate  devotion  to  his 
Master  only  serves  to  increase  his  hold  upon  our 
respect  and  admiration.    Is  it  so  clear  a  case,  then,  that 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  55 

the  modern  Jew  is  wrong  in  saying  that  Paul  was  the 
founder  of  Christianity  ?  His  was  **  the  boldest  enter- 
prise," Dr.  Harnack  tells  us;  and  he  ventured  upon  it 
"  without  being  able  to  appeal  to  a  single  word  of  his 
Master's."  ^ 

Then,  again,  the  claims  of  Peter  cannot  be  ignored. 
Nor  am  I  sure  that,  in  the  view  of  not  a  few,  these 
popular  candidates  for  the  chiefship  would  not  be 
overshadowed  by  the  tragic  figure  of  the  Baptist.  At 
all  events  the  question  is  worth  looking  into  by  the 
light  of  Professor  Harnack's  scheme.  And  it  will 
probably  be  found  that  the  grounds  on  which  some 
would  veto  the  discussion  have  less  weight  than  they 
suppose. 

It  may  be  demanded,  for  example,  "  Was  not  Jesus 
the  Messiah  ?  Was  it  not  He  who  preached  the  King- 
dom ?  Was  He  not  the  Son  of  God  ?  Did  He  not  die 
for  men?  Was  it  not  He  who  brought  the  message  of 
the  Gospel?  "  Now  all  this  may  prove  to  be  no  more 
than  an  appeal  to  the  prejudices  created  by  traditional 
beliefs.  Let  us  examine  it  in  the  clear  light  of  the 
"  latest  scholarship  and  modern  thought." 

"  Jesus  "  was  the  Messiah.  Yes,  but  what  does  this 
imply  ?  We  are  told  that  the  discovery  was  forced  on 
Him  when  He  had  "  settled  accounts  with  Himself." 
It  was  the  solution  of  "  a  surging  chaos  of  disparate 
feeling  as  well  as  of  contradictory  theory."'*  This 
"  theory,"  moreover,  was  connected  with  the  "  king- 
dom " ;  and  this  again  ''  Jesus  took  from  the  religious 
traditions  of  His  nation."  *     "  The  idea  of  the  two 

'p-179.  'pi35-  'P-52. 


56  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

kingdoms,  of  God  and  of  the  devil,  .  .  .  was  an 
idea  which  Jesus  simply  shared  with  His  contempo- 
raries. He  did  not  start  it,  but  He  grew  up  in  it,  and 
He  retained  it."^  No,  it  was  John  the  Baptist  who 
not  only  started  it,  but  gave  it  definite  form.  Not  that 
this  matters  much,  for  the  whole  conception  springs 
from  Jewish  tradition  and  ignorance :  "  Ultimately 
the  Kingdom  is  nothing  but  the  treasure  which  the 
soul  possesses  in  the  eternal  and  merciful  God."  "^ 

Well,  but  ''  Jesus  "  was  the  Son  of  God.  Yes,  but 
let  us  not  forget  what  we  have  already  learned.  This 
is  merely  an  "  idea,"  not  a  fact.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
He  was  the  son  of  Joseph  of  Nazareth.  In  this  con- 
nection "  the  name  of  Son,  rightly  understood,  means 
nothing  but  the  knowledge  of  God.  .  .  .  Jesus 
is  convinced  that  He  knows  God  in  a  way  in  which  no 
one  ever  knew  Him  before."^  Hence  His  claim  to  be 
the  Son  of  God. 

But  this  is  not  "  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ " — we  have  drifted  very  far  from  such 
a  conception  as  that — but  merely  "  the  God  whom 
Jesus  Christ  called  His  Father,  and  who  is  also  our 
Father."  *  It  is  not  that  He  has  raised  us  to  a  higher 
level,  but  that  He  stands  beside  us  on  the  level  of  our 
common  humanity.  He  knew  God  better  than  other 
men,  that  is  all. 

But,  it  will  be  urged,  does  not  the  message  that  He 
brought  decide  the  question — "  a  glad  message  assur- 
ing us  of  life  eternal,"  ^  a  message  that  brings  to  us 
"  the  certainty  of  redemption,  humility,  and  joy  in 

*P-  54.         ""p-  77-         'p.  128.         ■*?.  301 »        5 p.  146. 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  57 

God"?*  High-sounding  words  these,  but  let  us  ex- 
amine them.  Dr.  Harnack  analyses  the  "  message  " 
for  us.  It  relates  to  three  spheres,  he  tells  us,  which 
in  fact  "  coalesce."  And  these  are  "  the  Kingdom  of 
God,  God  as  the  Father  and  the  infinite  value  of  the 
human  soul,  and  the  higher  righteousness  showing 
itself  in  love."" 

But  what  is  this  "  higher  righteousness  "  ?  To  love 
God  and  our  neighbour.  Surely  the  true  Rationalist 
will  enter  a  protest  here.  The  light  of  Nature  will 
teach  us  that.  That  cold  light,  indeed,  will  neither 
solve  the  mystery  of  our  strange  incapacity  to  obey 
the  law  of  our  being,  nor  yet  give  us  strength  to  fulfil 
that  law.  For  Nature  has  no  word  of  either  help  or 
pity  in  the  case  of  failure,  albeit  its  voice  is  clear  on 
behalf  of  truth  and  good  and  right,  and  against  error 
and  evil  and  wrong. 

And  the  Christian  will  join  with  the  Rationalist  in 
his  protest;  for  this  is  precisely  what  he  means  when 
he  describes  the  Decalogue  as  "  the  moral  law."  The 
"  New  Commandment "  was  not  to  love  a  neighbour, 
but  to  love  a  fellow-disciple  according  to  the  standard 
of  the  Master's  love.  The  fact  is  that  Dr.  Harnack's 
contempt  for  the  Old  Testament  and  its  "  capricious 
and  war-like  Jehovah " '  has  led  him  to  forget  that 
the  law  of  love  to  a  neighbour  was  preached  in  the 
Pentateuch,  and  that  in  proclaiming  it  "  Jesus  "  was 
avowedly  quoting  Moses. 

The  same  cause,  perhaps,  has  blinded  him  to  the  fact 
that  "  the  Kingdom,"  as  he  conceives  it,  is  taught  as 

*p.  299.  «p.  yj,  'p.  y6. 


58  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

fully  in  the  Old  Testament  as  in  the  New.  For  if  "  the 
Kingdom  is  nothing  but  the  treasure  which  the  soul 
possesses  in  the  eternal  and  merciful  God/"  the  fact 
is  indisputable  that  the  worship  of  hearts  that  have 
possessed  this  treasure  has  always  found  its  truest 
and  fullest  expression  in  the  language  of  the  Psalms. 

There  was  nothing  new,  then,  in  the  message  in  so 
far  as  it  related  to  "  the  Kingdom  "  and  the  "  higher 
righteousness."  But  the  third  sphere  remains.  We 
are  told  that  "  the  Gospel  is  the  knowledge  and  recog- 
nition of  God  as  the  Father  " ;  and  still  more  definitely, 
that  ''  God's  Fatherhood  is  the  main  article  in  Jesus' 
message."  That  is,  of  course,  the  relationship  of 
Father  as  existing  between  God  and  all  mankind,  for 
no  other  is  recognised  in  Dr.  Harnack's  scheme. 

Now,  anyone  with  a  concordance  at  hand  can  ascer- 
tain that,  unless  it  be  the  relationship  between  God 
and  men  in  virtue  of  creation,  the  Bible  knows  nothing 
of  universal  Fatherhood;  and  further,  that  this  rela- 
tionship formed  no  part  of  the  Gospel  "  message." 
Indeed  there  was  no  need  for  such  a  "  message." 
Even  the  heathen  recognised  Fatherhood  in  that  sense. 
The  Apostle  Paul,  therefore,  in  addressing  Athenian 
idolaters  could  appeal  to  it,  adopting  the  very  words 
of  their  own  poets,  **  For  we  are  also  his  offspring." 
And  the  Jew  already  possessed  the  truth  of  Father- 
hood in  a  far  higher  sense  in  connection  with  the 
covenant. 

There  was  nothing  new,  therefore,  in  the  conception 
of  the  Divine  Fatherhood,  any  more  than  in  that  of 
"  the  Kingdom  "  or  of  "  the  law  of  love."     But  what 

'  p.  77' 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  59 

was  characteristic  in  the  teaching  of  the  New  Testament 
was  that  Divine  grace  admitted  those  who  were  in  a 
special  sense  ''  disciples "  ^  to  a  relationship  which 
depended  neither  on  creation  nor  yet  on  the  covenant, 
but  on  a  new  birth  by  the  Divine  Spirit.  That  this 
sonship  was  strictly  Hmited  to  those  who  were  thus 
"  born  again "  is  the  plain  teaching  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel.  But  no  more  emphatic  denial  of  the  figment 
of  universal  Fatherhood  in  this  sphere  will  be  found  in 
the  Fourth  Gospel  than  is  contained  in  the  following 
words  recorded  by  the  Synoptists :  "  No  one  knoweth 
the  Son,  save  the  Father;  neither  doth  any  know  the 
Father,  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son 
willeth  to  reveal  Hint."  ^  The  fact  is  that  Dr.  Harnack 
studies  the  Bible  with  a  mind  so  entirely  prepossessed 
by  what  he  expects  and  intends  to  find  there,  that  he 
reads  into  the  Gospels  a  doctrine  which  they  expressly 
condemn,  and  fails  to  find  what  lies  open  on  the  sur- 
face. 

And  now  it  is  high  time  to  pause  that  we  may  con- 
sider whether  anything  is  left  to  support  the  Naza- 
rene's  claims  to  transcendent  homage.  "  What  is 
there  left  us  ?  "  our  author  may  well  demand.  I  own  I 
cannot  see  anything  is  left  us,  unless  it  be  the  tradition 
of  an  ideal  life,  to  serve  as  a  pattern  of  all  good  for 
all  time.  And  as  we  stand  amid  the  wreck  of  every- 
thing on  which  the  Christian  faith  has  rested  during 
all  the  centuries,  it  is  impossible  to  keep  back  the  fear 

^In  taking  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  as  addressed  to  the 
multitude,  Dr.  Harnack  overlooks  the  first  verse  of  Mat- 
thew V. 

''Matt.  xi.  27;  Luke  x.  22. 


60  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

lest  that  life  too  may  prove  to  be  nothing  but  a  mere 
"  idea " — the  splendid  dream  of  those  noble  and 
generous  enthusiasts  who  imagined  that  the  son  of 
Joseph  was  the  Son  of  God. 

Of  the  Greek  Church  Professor  Harnack  writes  that 
it  took  the  form  "  not  of  a  Christian  product  in  Greek 
dress,  but  of  a  Greek  product  in  Christian  dress." 
And  of  his  own  scheme  we  may  aver  that  it  is  not 
Christianity  in  the  foreign  garb  of  Rationalism,  but 
Rationalism  disguised  in  Christian  language. 

"  What  is  there  left  us  ?  "  we  may  well  exclaim. 
And  from  being  an  inquiry  for  discussion  the  words 
become  the  cry  of  our  despair.  What  is  there  left? 
The  Christ  of  God  ?  But  this,  we  are  told,  is  no  more 
than  an  "  idea,"  the  creation  of  the  mind  of  Paul. 
Here  are  Dr.  Harnack's  words :  "  Paul  became  the 
author  of  the  speculative  idea  that  not  only  was  God 
in  Christ,  but  that  Christ  Himself  was  possessed  of  a 
peculiar  nature  of  a  heavenly  kind."  In  a  word,  that 
Christ  was  something  more  than  Joseph's  son. 

"  The  Gospel  ?  "  Yes,  but  not  "  the  Gospel  of  our 
salvation  " — that  "  Christ  died  for  our  sins  according 
to  the  Scriptures."  This,  too,  is  but  a  Pauline  "  idea." 
His  was  ''  the  Gospel  of  God  concerning  His  Son, 
Jesus  Christ  our  Lord."  But  "  the  Gospel  as  Jesus 
proclaimed  it,"  Dr.  Harnack  insists  with  all  the  em- 
phasis of  italic  type,  "  has  to  do  with  the  Father  only, 
and  not  with  the  Son." 

And  let  no  one  suppose  that  the  foregoing  quota- 
tions give  an  unfair  impression  of  the  author's  scheme. 
Here  is  the  concluding  sentence  of  his  book.  It  is  the 
summary  and  the  climax  of  all  that  has  gone  before. 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  61 

and   it   has   manifestly   been   framed   with   elaborate 
care : — 

"If  with  a  steady  will  we  affirm  the  forces  and  the  stan- 
dards which  on  the  summits  of  our  inner  life  shine  out  as  our 
highest  good,  nay,  as  our  real  self;  if  we  are  earnest  and 
courageous  enough  to  accept  them  as  the  great  Reality  and 
direct  our  lives  by  them;  and  if  we  then  look  at  the  course 
of  mankind's  history,  follow  its  upward  development,  and 
search,  in  strenuous  and  patient  service  for  the  communion 
of  minds  in  it,  we  shall  not  faint  in  weariness  and  despair, 
but  become  certain  of  God,  of  the  God  whom  Jesus  Christ 
called  His  Father,  and  who  is  also  our  Father." 

Such,  then,  is  the  authoritative  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion, "  What  is  there  left  us  ?  "  Let  me  contrast  the 
closing  passage  of  Dr.  Harnack's  treatise  on  "  Chris- 
tianity "  with  the  closing  passage  of  Cicero's  treatise 
on  "  Old  Age."  In  view  of  the  heathen  doctrine  of 
the  immortality  of  the  soul  the  pagan  puts  from  him 
the  desire  to  live  his  life  over  again.  He  refuses, 
"  after  having  run  his  course,  to  be  called  back  from 
the  goal  to  the  starting-place."    And  he  adds : — 

"  I  retire  from  this  world  as  it  were  from  an  inn,  and  not 
as  if  from  a  home,  for  Nature  has  assigned  it  to  us  as  an 
hotel  for  sojourn,  and  not  as  a  '  local  habitation.'  O  glorious 
day !  when  I  shall  set  out  on  my  journey  to  that  divine  con- 
clave and  company  of  spirits,  and  when  to  this  troubled,  this 
polluted  scene  I  shall  bid  farewell !  " 

The  reader  can  judge  between  the  Roman  paganism 
of  2000  years  ago  and  the  German  "  Christianity  "  of 
to-day.  The  one  seems  instinct  with  brightness  and 
hope ;  the  other  aims  no  higher  than  to  rescue  us  from 
"  weariness  and  despair." 


62  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

And  can  it  avail  even  for  this?  What  message  has 
it  for  the  ordinary  man  of  the  world,  who,  being 
neither  a  Pharisee  nor  a  fool,  is  conscious  that  he  is  a 
sinner  and  needs  forgiveness?  And  this  just  because 
he  is  "  certain  of  God,  the  God  whom  Jesus  Christ 
called  His  Father,"  the  God  of  the  Bible,  "  the  faith- 
ful God  who  keepeth  judgment  and  mercy  with  them 
that  love  Him  and  keep  His  commandments,  to  a 
thousand  generations."  But  he  has  not  loved  Him, 
neither  has  he  kept  His  commandments,  but  broken 
them. 

Even  if  he  is  better  than  his  neighbours,  and  has 
habitually  tried  to  please  God,  he  is  oppressed  by  a 
sense  of  utter  failure.  And  if  he  has  lived  like  other 
men,  the  warning  of  conscience  is  still  plainer  and 
louder.  It  is  not  "  the  certainty  of  God "  that  he 
craves,  for  he  is  intelligent  enough  to  know  that  Na- 
ture is  but  another  name  for  God,  and  that  Nature  is 
stern  and  pitiless  in  punishing.  Nothing  will  satisfy 
him  but  the  certainty  of  a  Saviour.  And  when  Dr. 
Harnack  speaks  of  "  the  summits  of  his  inner  life  " 
and  the  "  upward  development  of  mankind's  his- 
tory," the  words  only  mock  him.  In  other  circum- 
stances, perhaps,  they  might  interest  and  amuse  him; 
but  in  view  of  the  realities  of  eternity  they  seem  to 
savour  of  mere  levity.  Even  a  Romish  priest  with  his 
crucifix  would  be  a  more  welcome  visitor. 

And  his  preference  would  be  right.  For  the  posi- 
tion of  Romanism  to-day  is  akin  to  that  of  Judaism  in 
Messianic  times.  It  has  not  renounced  the  truth,  but 
it  "  holds  it  down  in  unrighteousness."  The  great 
doctrines  of  the  Christian  faith  remain — the  Deity  of 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  63 

Christ,  redemption  through  His  blood,  the  Divine  au- 
thority of  Holy  Scripture — but  they  are  corrupted  and 
concealed  by  a  mass  of  human  traditions  and  error. 
Many  a  devout  Romanist,  therefore,  may  be  acknowl- 
edged as  a  fellow-Christian.  But  infidelity  absolutely 
separates  from  Christ.  It  is  not  a  mere  perversion  of 
the  faith ;  it  is  a  denial  of  it.  Apostate  Christianity  is 
not  so  hopeless  as  an  apostasy  that  utterly  under- 
mines Christianity. 

And  this  is  the  abyss  in  which  Dr.  Harnack's  teach- 
ing would  engulf  us.  And  the  road  which  leads  to  it 
is  the  so-called  "  Higher  Criticism."  Not  so,  it  will 
perhaps  it  will  be  said,  with  our  English  Critics.  But 
the  explanation  of  this  is  simple.  As  a  nation  we  are 
not  as  logical  as  the  Germans,  and  most  of  our  English 
Critics  still  feel  the  power  of  truth  which  every  free 
and  fearless  thinker  recognises  to  be  inconsistent  with 
the  principles  and  conclusions  of  the  pseudo-Criticism. 


CHAPTER  VI 

ik  SSUMING  that  vivisection  is  lawful  wHen  some 
ZJL  definite  and  useful  purpose  can  be  attained  by 
-/.  jk^it,  I  propose  to  put  a  German  professor  on 
the  table.  Some  two  years  ago  Professor  Friedrich 
Delitzsch  of  the  University  of  Berlin  delivered  a  lec- 
ture in  the  presence  of  the  German  Emperor  upon  the 
relation  between  the  Bible  and  recent  archaeological 
discoveries.  And  a  second  lecture  followed  on  the 
same  subject  and  under  the  same  auspices.  These 
lectures  afterwards  appeared  in  book  form  with  the 
captivating  title  of  "  Babel  and  Bible  " ;  and  an  English 
translation  now  lies  before  me,  "  edited,  with  an  Intro- 
duction, by  C.  H.  W.  Johns,  M.  A.,"  of  Queen's  Col- 
lege, Cambridge. 

This  introduction  recites  that  in  reading  these  lec- 
tures all  Bible  students  "  felt  themselves  on  very 
familiar  ground."  *'  No  doubt,"  the  writer  remarks, 
"  some  felt  a  little  disappointed  at  so  conservative  a 
treatment."  "  It  came  therefore  as  a  shock  of  surprise 
to  find  that  rejoinders  were  being  issued."  And  re- 
ferring to  these  rejoinders  by  Christian  scholars,  Mr. 
Johns  writes,  "  In  an  age  when  almost  any  argument 
is  enough  to  base  a  popular  cause  upon,  when  men  let 
themselves  be  led  captive  by  the  most  specious  non- 
sense, we  are  used  to  the  publication  of  things  as 
meaningless  as  the  scrawlings  of  planchette.    But  even 

64 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  65 

these  meet  with  so  much  acceptance  that  they  become 
a  perilous  influence  on  ill-regulated  minds."  ^ 

I  crave  special  attention  to  these  words.  They  are 
altogether  typical  of  the  weapons  by  which  every  day, 
and  on  every  side,  humble  Christians  are  being  brow- 
beaten into  unbelief  by  the  advocates  of  this  modern 
craze  of  the  pseudo-Criticism.  In  our  own  country  at 
least  such  weapons  are  not  tolerated  in  other  spheres 
of  controversy.  Even  in  the  rough  struggle  of  poli- 
tics it  is  only  the  baser  sort  of  men  who  have  recourse 
to  them.  And  in  a  sphere  in  which  feeling  is  so  sensi- 
tive and  so  sacred  no  generous  mind  will  stoop  to  use 
them.  But  we  are  told  at  every  turn  that  all  intelli- 
gence, all  scholarship,  and  all  culture  are  on  the  side 
of  this  new  apostasy.  The  same  taunt  was  as  freely 
urged  by  the  champions  of  the  old  Arian  heresy,  of 
which  this  modern  heresy  is  but  a  veiled  revival. 

"Ill-regulated  minds'':  ''The  most  specious  non- 
sense": ''As  meaningless  as  the  scrawlings  of  plan- 
chette."  Such  weapons  are  not  to  my  taste.  But  if  I 
stoop  to  wrest  them  from  those  whose  choice  they  are, 
I  will  use  them  unsparingly.  Spiritual  truth  is  abso- 
lutely Divine,  and  must  be  spiritually  discerned.  But 
error  and  nonsense  are  altogether  human,  and  can  be 
refuted  on  that  basis.    If  men  choose  to  treat  the  Bible 

^  A  most  outspoken  "  rejoinder "  to  Delitzsch  was  a  ser- 
mon preached  in  the  Cambridge  University  pulpit  on  8th  Nov., 
1903.  This  indignant  repudiation  of  the  methods  and  con- 
clusions of  the  book  was  by  the  "  ill-regulated  mind  "  of  the 
Rev.  A.  F.  Kirkpatrick,  D.  D.,  Master  of  Selwyn  College,  and 
one  of  the  Professors  of  Divinity  in  the  University. — Cam- 
bridge Review,  12  Nov.,  1903. 


66  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

as  a  purely  human  book,  we  can  meet  them  on  their 
own  ground.  But  when  their  lucubrations  are  shown 
to  be  mere  senseless  scrawlings  and  specious  nonsense, 
let  us  have  no  whining  if  we  brand  them  as  they  de- 
serve. 

With  these  prefatory  words  I  open  "  Babel  and 
Bible."  The  first  thirty-nine  pages  of  the  book  are 
mainly  a  record  of  some  of  the  recent  archaeological 
discoveries  which  have  amazed  and  delighted  faint- 
hearted Christians  by  the  confirmation  they  afford  of 
the  authenticity  of  Scripture :  confirmation  of  a  kind 
that  in  other  ages  was  never  dreamed  of  by  millions 
who  lived  and  died  in  the  faith  of  it.  But  it  is  the 
pages  that  follow  which  concern  us  here,  for  in  these 
we  have  the  lecturer's  inferences  and  comments. 

Here  is  the  first :  "  When,  therefore,  the  twelve 
tribes  of  Israel  invaded  Canaan,  they  came  to  a  land 
which  was  a  domain  completely  pervaded  by  Baby- 
lonian culture."  ^ 

Yes,  and  the  fact  has  a  significance  which  neither 
the  German  professor  nor  his  English  editor  seems  to 
understand.  Babylon  was  so  essentially  the  seat  and 
impersonation  of  the  religious  apostasy  of  the  old 
world,  that  in  the  Apocalypse  the  name  is  used  in 
connection  with  the  religious  apostasy  of  the  Christian 
dispensation.  The  Reformation  was  God's  method  of 
setting  up  a  testimony  against  Rome :  the  call  of 
Abraham,  the  Egyptian  bondage,  the  Exodus,  and  the 
Eisode  were  His  methods  of  preparing  a  people  who 
should  be  His  witnesses  against  the  apostasy  of 
Babylon. 

'p.  39- 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  67 

Hence  the  sternness  with  which  every  influence  that 
tended  toward  Babylon  was  suppressed  or  barred.  But 
in  this  age  of  shallow  indifference  people  who  call 
themselves  Protestants  disparage  the  Reformers  be- 
cause of  their  uncompromising  hostility  to  Rome;  and 
people  who  call  themselves  Christians  blaspheme  the 
God  of  the  Bible  because  of  His  stern  severity  toward 
Babylon. 

But  let  us  come  to  the  details  of  this  new  enlighten- 
ment. "  Just,"  we  are  told — 

"  Just  as  the  sacrificial  and  priestly  system  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament is  profoundly  influenced  by  the  Babylonian,  so  it  is 
significant  that  Israelite  tradition  itself  no  longer  affords  any 
certain  information  respecting  the  origin  of  the  Sabbath  {cf. 
Exod.  XX.  II  with  Deut.  v.  15). 

"  But  since  the  Babylonians  also  had  a  Sabbath  ...  it 
is  scarcely  possible  for  us  to  doubt  that  we  owe  the  blessings 
decreed  in  the  Sabbath  or  Sunday  day  of  rest  in  the  last 
resort  to  that  ancient  and  civilised  raCe  on  the  Euphrates  and 
Tigris." ' 

Now  my  purpose  here  is  not  to  lay  down  the  law, 
but  to  treat  my  readers  as  a  jury,  whose  function  it 
shall  be  to  decide  the  issues  I  submit  to  them.  I  pause 
therefore  here  to  raise  the  question.  What  must  be  the 
mental  condition,  the  reasoning  capacity,  of  a  man 
who  could  write  the  words  I  have  just  quoted,  or  who 
could,  as  an  editor,  adopt  them  ? 

The  preliminary  inquiry — ^the  supposed  conflict  be- 
tween Exod.  XX.  and  Deut.  v. — may  be  left  to  the 
judgment  of  any  intelligent  Christian.  The  re-pro- 
mulgation of  the  Sabbath  law  at  Sinai — for  that  it  was 

1  pp.  40,  41. 


68  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

a  re-promulgation  the  words  of  the  Decalogue  ex- 
pressly recognise — pointed  back  to  the  Creation.  But 
that  law  had  been  forgotten  and  lost  while  Israel  was 
"  a  slave  in  the  land  of  Egypt."  Hence  Moses'  added 
words  at  its  second  re-promulgation  at  the  Jordan: 
''  Therefore  the  Lord  thy  God  commanded  thee  to 
keep  the  Sabbath  day."  This,  however,  is  a  minor 
point. 

One  of  the  many  difficulties  and  embarrassments  of 
secret  service  work  arises  from  the  necessity  of  trust- 
ing one's  agents.  If  I  want  an  informant  to  follow  up 
a  clue,  I  must  place  the  thread  in  his  hand.  If  I  want 
him  to  work  on  the  facts  already  in  my  possession,  it 
may  be  necessary  to  give  him  those  facts.  I  thus  put 
it  in  his  power  to  sell  my  information  to  the  news- 
papers, or  to  disclose  it  to  his  co-conspirators.  And 
yet  I  cannot  certainly  charge  him  with  being  false  to 
me;  for  I  have  given  him  facts,  and  facts  may  be 
known  to  others  as  well  as  to  myself.  But  I  can  easily 
test  him.  Let  me  send  him  out  with  a  plausibly  in- 
vented story;  and  if  one  word  of  it  appears  in  the 
newspapers,  or  comes  back  to  me  through  other 
informants,  I  know  he  has  betrayed  my  confidence. 

This  parable  surely  needs  no  commentary.  If  the 
Sabbath  were  a  human  institution,  then  the  argument 
would  be  plausible  that,  as  Babylon  had  a  Sabbath 
day,  and  Babylon  was  an  older  nation  than  Israel,  the 
day  of  rest  was  borrowed  from  "  that  ancient  race  on 
the  Euphrates."  Plausible,  I  admit,  but  nothing  more. 
But  when  these  men  go  on  to  lay  this  down  as  a  fact 
which  ''it  is  scarcely  possible  for  us  to  doubt/'  we 
can  only  suppose  that  their  brain  power  of  doubting 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  69 

is  already  exhausted  by  the  effort  of  doubting  every- 
thing which  has  been  most  surely  believed  among 
Christians  of  every  name  in  every  age.  If,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  Sabbath  is  a  Divine  institution — if,  as 
we  know,  the  seven-day  cycle  is  stamped  upon  our 
very  physical  frame — then  the  whole  argument  is 
absolutely  puerile. 

In  a  measure  also  the  foregoing  parable  applies  to 
the  record  of  the  Flood.  Even  if  the  Biblical  narra- 
tive were  a  mere  legend,  the  student  of  evidence  would 
decide,  not  that  Genesis  was  based  on  the  Babylon 
version  of  it,  but  that  both  were  derived  from  a  com- 
mon source.  For  the  differences  which  mark  them 
can  scarcely  be  explained  on  any  other  ground.  But 
this  Deluge  controversy  is  worn  threadbare,  and  I 
pass  on  to  the  Creation.^ 

I  could  wish  that  space  permitted  of  my  giving  in 
full  Professor  Delitzsch's  summary  of  "  the  creation- 
epic  "  of  Babylon,  recounting  the  struggle  between 
Marduk,  "  the  god  of  light,"  and  the  evil  dragon, 
Tiamat.     But  the  following  extract  must  sufRce : — 

"  Straight  he  drives  to  meet  the  dragon  and  her  army,  and 
utters  the  call  to  single  combat.  Then  Tiamat  uttered  wild 
and  piercing  cries  until  the  ground  quaked  asunder  from  the 
bottom.  She  opened  her  jaws  to  their  utmost,  but  before  she 
could  close  her  lips  the  god  Marduk  bade  the  evil  wind  enter 
within  her;  then  seizing  the  javelin,  he  cut  her  heart  in 
pieces,   cast   down  her   body   and   stood   upon   it   whilst   her 

^The  Sabbath  is  dealt  with  on  pp.  40  and  41  (see  also  pp. 
181  and  190) ;  the  Flood  on  pp.  42-46 ;  and  the  Creation  on 
PP-  47-52.  Why  the  Flood  should  come  before  the  Creation, 
I  do  not  know. 


70  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

myrmidons  were  placed  in  durance  vile.  Then  Marduk  clave 
Tiamat  clean  asunder  like  a  fish:  out  of  the  one  half  he 
formed  heaven,  out  of  the  other  earth,  at  the  same  time  divid- 
ing the  upper  waters  from  the  lower  by  means  of  the  firma- 
ment." 

We  are  asked  to  believe  that  this  is  the  origin  of 
the  simple  and  sublime  record  of  Genesis!  The  ques- 
tion which  once  again  I  submit  to  the  thoughtful 
reader  is,  not  as  to  the  truth  or  heresy  of  such  a  theory, 
but  as  to  the  intellectual  condition,  the  reasoning 
capacity,  of  men  who  propound  it  or  who  father  it. 
Where  is  the  "  specious  nonsense  "  now  ? 

We  next  come  to  the  story  of  the  Fall,  and  here 
again  I  submit  the  same  issue  to  the  jury.  "  May  we 
point  to  an  old  Babylonian  cylinder  seal  ?  "  the  lec- 
turer asks.  And  a  fac-simile  of  the  seal  is  set  out  upon 
the  page.  "  Here,  in  the  middle,"  he  proceeds,  "  is  the 
tree  hanging  with  fruit ;  on  the  right  the  man,  to  be 
recognised  by  the  horns,  the  symbol  of  strength,  on  the 
left  the  woman ;  both  reaching  out  their  hands  to  the 
fruit,  and  behind  the  woman  the  serpent.  Should 
there  not  be  a  connection  between  this  old  Babylonian 
representation  and  the  Biblical  story  of  the  Fall  ? "  ^ 

"  A  connection  "  ?  Certainly.  No  one  would  dis- 
pute it.  But  the  suggestion  that  this  discredits  "  the 
Biblical  story  of  the  Fall "  is  worthy  of  a  lunatic 
asylum.  And  yet  this  is  clearly  the  innuendo  of  the 
passage.^ 

^P.  56. 

^  To  reproduce  the  illustration  is  unfortunately  impracti- 
cable. It  reminds  one  of  a  baby's  first  attempt  at  art.  The 
tree  in  the  middle  is  like  a  dilapidated  hat-stand.    On  either 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  71 

We  next  learn  that  the  heaven  and  the  hell  of  the 
Bible  are  but  a  perversion  of  *'  the  simple  Babylonian 
idea  of  the  clear  water  which  is  enjoyed  in  Sheol  by 
those  who  are  perfectly  pious."  '  And  as  for  angels, 
"  the  idea  that  the  Deity  employs  messengers  is  essen- 
tially Babylonian ;  and  the  conception  of  cherubim  and 
seraphim,  and  of  guardian  angels  attending  upon  man, 
is  also  to  be  traced  back  to  Babylonia.  A  Babylonian 
ruler  required  an  army  of  messengers  to  carry  his 
commands  into  every  land;  so,  too,  the  gods  must 
have  a  legion  of  messengers  or  angels  always  ready  to 
do  their  service." " 

Again  I  ask,  What  can  be  the  mental  condition  of 
people  who  think  the  Bible  is  discredited  by  such 
"  specious  nonsense  "  as  this  ?  Indeed  the  reader  may 
decide  whether,  here  at  least,  the  qualifying  adjective 
may  not  be  discarded. 

Yet  another  specimen.  "  The  Yahwe  faith  "  was 
"  burdened  .  .  .  with  a  heathen  sacrificial  cultus."  ^ 
Thus  it  is  that  this  writer  brands  the  sacrifices  which, 
the  New  Testament  expressly  declares,  were  Divine 
types  of  Calvary. 

side  is  a  petticoated  figure  in  a  sitting  posture,  with  an  air 
space  between  it  and  a  square  box.  As  Professor  Delitzsch 
tells  us,  we  know  that  one  is  a  man  because  he  has  horns;  he 
omits  to  mention  that  we  know  the  other  is  a  woman  because 
she  has  a  hat.  Behind  her  is  a  serpent  pirouetting  on  the  tip 
of  its  tail.  It  is  most  interesting  as  showing  how  traditions  of 
the  Fall  have  survived  outside  the  sphere  of  revelation.  But 
for  Professor  Delitzsch's  purpose  it  is  grotesquely  puerile. 
That  I  have  not  misrepresented  his  purpose  is  clear  from  an 
appendix  note  on  p.  114;  qui  s' excuse  s' accuse. 
'  p.  62.  ^  p.  63.  '  p.  j6. 


n  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

Here  I  would  propose  a  question.  Did  any  sane 
man,  savage  or  civilised,  ever  evolve  from  his  own 
brain  'the  thought  that  if  he  offended  another  the  right 
way  to  appease  him  would  be  to  make  a  mess  opposite 
his  door  by  slaughtering  a  beast  there?  And  the 
man  who  could  imagine  that  his  god  would  be  pro- 
pitiated by  such  a  performance  must  suppose  his  god 
to  be  more  of  a  lunatic  than  himself.  There  is  only 
one  explanation  possible  of  the  *'  heathen  sacrificial 
cultus,"  and  that  is  the  tradition  of  a  primeval  revela- 
tion. 

But,  we  are  told,  the  19th  verse  of  the  4th  chapter 
of  Deuteronomy  "  at  one  blow  annihilates  the  phantom 
of  an  '  original  revelation,' "  and  at  the  same  time  ex- 
presses "  in  the  plainest  words  "  that  all  nations,  Israel 
alone  excepted,  are  "  given  up  by  Yahwe  himself  to 
godlessness  and  idolatry."  ^ 

Here  are  materials  for  an  interesting  de  lunatico 
inquiry.  Will  my  reader  study  for  himself  this  verse 
— Deut.  iv.  19 — and  see  if  he  can  find  in  it  the  mean- 
ing thus  extracted  from  it. 

There  is  plenty  in  these  pages  about  the  savage 
cruelty  of  "  Yahwe,"  and  much  is  made  of  the  exter- 
mination of  the  "innocent"  Canaanites.^  The  lec- 
turer's archaeological  researches  might  have  taught 
him  that  those  nations  were  all  (as  the  Bible  tells  us) 
"  greater  and  mightier "  than  Israel.     How  was  it, 

*pp.  206  and  207;  cf.  p.  151. 

^  E.  g.,  "  The  more  deeply  I  immerse  myself  in  the  spirit 
of  the  prophetic  literature  of  the  Old  Testament  the  greater 
becomes  my  mistrust  of  Yahwe,  who  butchers  the  people  with 
the  sword  of  his  insatiable  anger." 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  73 

then,  that  they  went  down  before  Israel  as  ripe  corn 
falls  before  the  sickle  ? 

They  had  their  "  walled  cities  "  and  "  their  chariots 
of  iron  " — the  equivalent  of  modern  artillery.  And 
yet  one  and  all  they  fell  before  this  nomad  Arab  tribe, 
not  long  rescued  from  slavery ;  a  tribe  that  had  neither 
horse  nor  chariot,  nor  a  "  walled  city,"  and  whose 
"  military  base  "  was  only  an  open  camp,  filled  with 
women  and  children,  and  camp-followers  and  cattle. 
He  who  scouts  the  whole  story  may  be  a  philosopher; 
but  he  who  accepts  the  facts  and  yet  rejects  the  Scrip- 
tural explanation  of  them  must  be  a — well,  he  is  not 
a  philosopher! 

And  here  two  passages  of  Holy  Scripture  might 
have  checked  the  lecturer's  blasphemies.  The  one 
tells  how,  centuries  before  these  nations  were  given 
over  to  destruction  by  a  long-suffering  and  merciful 
God,  they  had  become  so  steeped  in  nameless  vice,  that 
in  one  of  their  cities  not  even  ten'  men  could  be  found 
who  were  free  from  it.^  And  the  other  is  the  awful 
warning  which  fell  from  the  lips  of  the  Lord  and  Sa- 
viour Jesus  Christ,  that  a  fate  more  terrible  than  that 
of  Sodom  awaits  the  rejecters  of  His  teaching. 

The  God  who  gave  up  the  nations  of  Canaan  to  the 
sword  is  He  who  in  one  hour  destroyed  the  Cities  of 

^  The  subject  is  an  unsavoury  one,  and  I  would  deal  with 
it  by  referring  to  Mr.  Gladstone's  "  Impregnable  Rock  of 
Holy  Scripture,"  pp.  112,  113.  Those  nations,  he  writes,  "  had 
reached  that  latest  stage  of  sensual  iniquity,  which  respects 
neither  God  nor  Nature."  Their  "  bestial  indulgencies  had 
become  recognised,  normal,  nay  more,  even  religious  and 
obligatory."    But  I  refer  to  the  whole  passage. 


74  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

the  Plain  by  fire.  And  with  that  God  and  that  judg- 
ment the  Saviour  in  His  ministry  of  grace  identified 
Himself.^  But  men  who  hold  the  Bible  in  such  con- 
tempt cannot  be  expected  to  read  it  carefully. 

There  is  another  of  their  errors  which  the  reverent 
student  of  Scripture  would  avoid.  I  wonder  whether 
Macaulay's  New  Zealander,  when  he  comes  to  write 
our  story,  will  take  our  Criminal  Code  as  reflecting  the 
principles  by  which  Christians  to-day  are  guided  in 
their  daily  life.  Yet  a  blunder  as  gross  marks  the 
criticisms  of  these  pundits.  They  confound  the  law 
of  the  theocracy  with  teaching  by  which  the  people  of 
God  were  to  direct  their  lives. 

And  there  is  yet  another  blunder  which  marks 
these  pages,  a  blunder  shared  by  very  many  who  have 
no  sympathy  with  heresy.  People  seem  to  think  that 
while  grace  is  Divine,  law  is  altogether  human.  But 
"  there  is  no  power  but  of  God,"  and  the  criminal 
magistrate  is  as  definitely  a  "  minister  of  God  "  ^  as  is 
the  preacher  of  the  Gospel.  And  the  very  element 
which  leads  ignorance  to  brand  the  "  Mosaic  Code  "  as 
barbarous  is  precisely  the  element  the  want  of  which 
makes  English  law  so  cruel  in  its  operation.  The 
**  anarchist  " — that  is,  the  man  who  committed  a  "  pre- 
sumptuous "  (or,  as  R.  V.  has  it,  a  high-handed) 
offence,  an  offence  in  respect  of  which  no  plea  of 
provocation  or  temptation  could  be  urged — received 
a  pitiless  judgment;  but  for  others,  even  the  homicide 
not  excepted,  there  was  mercy. ^ 

^Matt.  X.  15;  xi.  24.  ^Rom.  xiii. 

'Num.  XV.  30-36;  XXXV.  II.  The  author  deals  with  this 
question  in  his  "Christianised  Rationalism,"  pp.  56-58;  and 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  75 

Professor  Delitzsch's  use  of  the  Hammurabi  Code 
is  so  characteristic  of  the  ways  of  the  pseudo-Critics, 
that  it  claims  a  passing  notice.  The  Amraphel  of 
Genesis  xiv.  they  formerly  dismissed  as  a  myth,  and 
the  "  Mosaic  Books,"  they  declared,  could  not  have 
been  written  so  early  as  in  the  Mosaic  age.  But  now 
Amraphel  stands  out  as  one  of  the  great  figures  of  the 
old  world,  and  his  code  has  rightly  excited  admira- 
tion. But  instead  of  repenting  of  their  past  mistakes 
and  blunders,  the  Critics  now  declare  that  the  Mosaic 
Code  was  merely  an  adaptation  of  this  Hammurabi 
Code  of  four  centuries  earlier. 

When  judged  by  details  of  the  kind  to  which  the 
student  of  evidence  would  look  in  testing  such  a  ques- 
tion, the  two  codes  are  entirely  dissimilar.  But  this  is 
not  all.  If  the  ''  Mosaic  Code  "  were  purely  human 
and  really  the  work  of  Moses,  the  theory  would  be 
reasonable  that  it  was  borrowed  from  Babylon;  but, 
according  to  the  Critics,  this  code  was  framed  a 
thousand  years  after  Hammurabi  had  been  forgotten. 
Their  one  theory  thus  blows  their  other  theory  into 
the  air. 

My  scheme,  however,  is  not  to  review  or  answer 
this  evil  book,  but  merely  to  enable  my  readers  to 
estimate  aright  its  character.  And  this  for  the  pur- 
pose I  have  indicated,  namely,  to  illustrate  the  effects 
of  the  pseudo-Criticism  upon  minds  of  a  certain  kind. 
In  *'  What  is  Christianity  ?  "  we  see  how  a  scholar  of 

from  another  point  of  view  in  his  articles  on  Crime  in  the 
Nineteenth  Century,  1901-1904.  It  is  the  want  of  this  distinc- 
tion which  makes  our  English  law  so  cruel  to  the  weak,  so 
inefficient  in  the  case  of  the  wicked. 


76  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

the  highest  rank,  a  grave  and  reverent  theologian,  and 
a  master  of  the  rare  art  of  reasoning,  is  thus,  by  the 
inexorable  logic  of  a  false  system,  brought  down  to 
the  level  of  mere  Rationalism,  In  "  Babel  and  Bible  " 
we  see  how  a  man  of  a  different  type  is  led  with  levity 
worthy  of  a  precocious  schoolboy  to  run  amuck 
through  all  that  is  most  sacred  in  the  Christian  revela- 
tion. Many  a  page  might  be  filled  with  extracts  to 
point  the  moral.  But  two  more  quotations  must 
suffice. 

The  first  of  these  I  cannot  bring  myself  to  criticise. 
I  give  the  shameful  words  without  note  or  com- 
ment : — 

"  '  O  Marduk !  ' — runs  a  petition  in  a  prayer  to  the  city- 
deity  of  Babel — '  O  Marduk !  to  thee  belongs  the  spittle  of 
life ! '  Who  can  fail  in  such  a  connection  to  recall  New  Tes- 
tament accounts  such  as  that  which  narrates  that  Jesus  took 
the  deaf  and  dumb  man  aside,  put  his  finger  unto  his  ears, 
spat,  and  with  the  spittle  touched  his  tongue,  and  said, 
*  Ephphatha,'  '  Be  thou  opened  ! '"  ^ 


My  last  quotation  is  the  following: — 


"  With  the  giving  of  the  Law  from  Sinai,  the  conclusion 
of  a  so-called  covenant  by  Yahwe  with  Israel,  it  is  in  no 
respect  different.  In  spite  of  this  sacrosanct  bond  the  purely 
human  origin  and  character  of  the  Israelitish  Law  is  suffi- 
ciently obvious."  ^ 

If  "  sufficiently  obvious,"  how  strange  it  is  that  it 
was  reserved  for  this  "  Daniel  come  to  judgment "  to 
discover  it.  What  possible  claim  to  respect  or  con- 
sideration have  men  who  treat  in  this  jaunty  way  the 

'p.  174.  'pp.  187,  188, 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  77 

deliberate  convictions  of  others,  so  many  of  whom 
hold  the  highest  rank  in  the  hierarchy  of  learning  and 
of  genius?  For  page  after  page  might  be  filled  with 
the  names  of  contemporary  thinkers  and  scholars  of 
world-wide  fame  in  every  branch  of  human  knowledge 
who  believe  that  the  Sinai  covenant  was  Divine. 

The  main  *'  argument "  of  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews is  based  upon  the  contrast  between  this  Divine 
covenant  with  Israel,  and  the  new  and  better  covenant 
of  which  the  Christian  revelation  speaks.  Here  we 
stand  upon  holy  groimd.  But  there  is  an  inner  shrine ; 
and  as  we  pass  within  the  veil  into  the  presence  of  our 
Divine  Lord,  we  hear  from  His  lips  those  most  sacred 
of  sacred  words.  ''  This  is  the  new  covenant  in  My 
blood  which  is  shed  for  you." 

The  greatest  of  the  Apostles  was  once  "  a  blas- 
phemer," but  he  obtained  mercy  because  he  sinned  in 
unbelief  and  ignorance.  And  all  who  know  the  bound- 
less grace  which  the  new  covenant  betokens  may  surely 
cherish  the  hope  that,  in  the  infinite  mercy  of  God, 
the  authors  of  such  books  as  these  may  receive  a  fool's 
pardon  at  the  last. 


CHAPTER  VII 

STAID  and  pious  folk  are  apt  to  forget  their 
piety,  and  sometimes  even  their  morals,  when, 
in  visiting  some  foreign  country,they  no  longer 
feel  the  restraining  influences  which  regulate  their  life 
at  home.  And  a  like  phenomenon  is  not  unknown  in 
a  wholly  different  sphere.  The  air  of  the  United 
States  is  in  no  way  incompatible  with  Christian  truth 
— witness  the  noble  stand  for  the  Bible  maintained  by 
some  of  the  greatest  American  scholars.  But  it  seems 
to  have  a  disturbing  effect  upon  the  minds  of  visitors. 

In  1899  Dr.  George  Adam  Smith,  Professor  of  Old 
Testament  Language  and  Literature  in  the  Glasgow 
Theological  College  of  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland, 
crossed  the  Atlantic  to  deliver  the  "  Yale  Lectures  " 
of  that  year.  His  lectures  were  afterwards  published 
under  the  title  "  Modern  Criticism  and  the  Preaching 
of  the  Old  Testament  " ;  and  men  of  no  narrowness  of 
mind  or  creed  were  startled  to  find  in  this  volume 
some  of  the  worst  heresies  and  follies  of  the  pseudo- 
Criticism  respecting  the  Hebrew  Scriptures. 

The  waning  Puritanism  of  the  Free  Church  was 
supposed  to  have  received  a  new  stimulus  by  the  re- 
cent accession  of  the  United  Presbyterian  body.  As 
was  but  natural,  therefore.  Professor  Smith  was  put 
upon  his  defence.  A  "  memorial "  emanating  from 
**  a  meeting   of  ministers  and   elders "   brought  the 

78 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  79 

matter  formally  to  the  notice  of  the  "  College  Com- 
mittee " ;  and  the  Committee  called  upon  the  Professor 
for  his  apologia,  with  a  view  to  referring  the  whole 
question  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  Free 
Church. 

When,  therefore,  the  General  Assembly  met  in 
Edinburgh  in  1902  Professor  Smith's  case  came  up  for 
decision;  and  the  decision  arrived  at  was  a  refusal, 
on  technical  grounds,  to  take  any  action  in  the  matter. 

In  the  old  hanging  days  a  judge  allowed  a  felon  to 
escape  if  a  flaw  was  found  in  the  indictment.  And  if 
the  question  here  had  been  that  of  handing  over  a 
heretic  to  the  secular  arm,  or  even  excommunicating 
him,  the  decision  of  the  Assembly  might  obtain  general 
approval.  But  that  decision  was  by  no  means  of  a 
purely  negative  character.  It  had  far-reaching  prac- 
tical effects  of  extreme  gravity.  Notwithstanding  a 
repudiation  of  Professor  Smith's  heresies,  it  practic- 
ally condoned  these  heresies ;  and,  in  continuing  him  in 
his  Chair,  it  operated  as  a  public  avowal  that  he  was 
deemed  to  be  a  suitable  teacher  of  candidates  for  or- 
dination in  the  United  Free  Church  of  Scotland,  and 
therefore,  of  course,  that  such  teaching  is  legitimate 
from  the  pulpits  of  that  Church. 

It  is  with  a  definite  object  that  I  emphasise  this. 
For  there  are  special  reasons  why  I  wish  to  say  as 
little  as  possible  about  Professor  Smith's  book.^  And 
just  as  the  acceptance  of  a  bill  ousts  all  questions  about 
the  drawer  of  it,   so  the  decision  of  the  Assembly 

^I  learn  from  friends  of  Dr.  Smith  that  owing  to  ill-health 
he  has  been  compelled  to  leave  home  for  the  East,  and  that 
he  will  be  absent  for  some  time. 


80  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

covers  the  Professor,  and  throws  his  book  into  the 
shade.  Moreover,  the  Assembly's  decision  was  not 
taken  upon  the  book  itself,  but  upon  the  charges  laid 
in  the  "  memorial,"  the  author's  defence,  and  the  Com- 
mittee's report  on  the  case. 

In  "  Babel  and  Bible  "  we  have  the  jaunty  profanity 
of  a  sceptic  with  a  hobby.  Dr.  Smith's  book  is  char- 
acterised throughout  by  the  reverence  and  piety  of  a 
man  whose  personal  influence  is  due  to  the  sincerity 
of  his  faith  and  to  his  zeal  in  practical  Christian  work. 
And  the  object  of  his  book  is  not  at  all,  as  seems  to  be 
generally  supposed,  to  establish  ''  the  results  of  the 
latest  and  best  scholarship,"  or,  in  other  words,  the 
decrees  and  dicta  of  the  pseudo-Critics.  On  the  con- 
trary, he  assumes  those  results.  "  Modern  criticism," 
he  declares,  "  has  won  its  war  against  the  traditional 
theories.  It  only  remains  to  fix  the  amount  of  the 
indemnity."  ^ 

Claptrap  of  this  kind  is  not  worthy  of  the  author. 
And  yet  it  indicates  the  character  of  his  book.  For  it 
is  not  so  much  a  scholarly  treatise  as  a  popular  appeal. 
It  is  addressed  to  "  preachers "  rather  than  to  stu- 
dents;'* and,  so  far  as  I  know,  it  is  the  only  book  of 
its  kind  which  breathes  the  Christian  spirit.  "  Truth 
is  one."  But  it  is  not  so  in  Professor  Smith's  theology. 
For  with  him  the  wine  of  doctrine  is  kept,  as  it  were, 

'p.  72. 

^  p.  209.  Here  and  there  it  betokens  carelessness,  as  for 
example,  where  he  refers  (pp.  7,  8)  to  Dr.  Ryle's  "  Canon  of 
the  Old  Testament "  as  "  the  text-book  on  the  subject,"  and 
yet  makes  disparaging  statements  about  the  Canon,  which  are 
opposed  both  to  the  letter  and  the  spirit  of  that  work. 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  81 

in  bottles;  so  that  the  good  is  untainted  by  the  bad. 
Though  rare  with  Protestants,  this  is  not  uncommon 
with  Roman  Catholics. 

His  "  task "  he  defines  to  be  "  to  inquire,  first, 
whether  this  criticism  has  been  true  to  the  liberty 
which  the  New  Testament  sanctions " ;  and  second, 
whether  it  "  has  conserved  or  has  imperilled  that  per- 
manent religious  value  of  the  Old  Testament  which 
Christ  and  His  Apostles  so  fully  enforced."  ^  It  is 
important  to  keep  this  in  view. 

At  the  very  outset  I  must  express  my  sympathy  with 
the  author  in  his  revolt  against  "  traditional  beliefs." 
Every  Protestant  should  be  ready  to  bring  all  such  ? 
beliefs  to  the  test  of  Scripture.  If  our  own  country 
has  escaped  the  revolutionary  influences  which  have 
at  times  destroyed  or  threatened  public  order  in  less 
favoured  lands,  it  is  because  we  have  so  long  enjoyed 
the  safety-valve  of  free  thought  and  free  discussion. 
And  those  of  us  who  have  learned  to  distinguish  be- 
tween Divine  truth  and  the  decrees  and  creeds  of 
Churches  and  theologies,  are  not  likely  to  be  sub- 
merged by  this  wave  of  pseudo-Criticism.  It  only 
makes  us  take  a  firmer  hold  of  "  the  impregnable  rock 
of  Holy  Scripture." 

But  Professor  Smith's  revolt  against  an  iron-bound 
creed  has  been  of  the  nature  of  a  revolution.  Indeed 
he  uses  the  word  "  revolutionarv  "  as  describing:  his 
new  views.  Having  got  hold,  for  example,  of  the 
great  principle  that  Divine  revelation  is  progressive — 
which  is  as  true  of  the  New  Testament  as  of  the  Old  ^ 

^  p.  22. 

*  On  this  subject  I  would  refer  to  Canon  Bernard's  "  Prog- 


B2  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

— he  at  once  runs  riot  with  it.  It  leads  him  to  dismiss 
the  early  chapters  of  Genesis  as  "  myth  and  legend," 
though  it  would  suggest  to  a  more  sober  judgment 
that  these  "  documents  "  are  the  authentic  records  of 
earlier  revelations,  and  that  a  task  akin  to  that  of 
Nehemiah  in  a  later  age  was  then  discharged  by 
Moses. 

It  leads  him  also  to  adopt  many  of  what  may  fitly 
be  described  as  the  stock  bctises  of  the  pseudo-Criti- 
cism. A  flagrant  example  of  this  appears  even  in  his 
preface.  In  the  beginning,  he  tells  us,  "  God  revealed 
Himself  as  a  tribal  deity — the  only  conception  of  the 
Divine  nature  of  which  at  the  time  the  Semitic  mind 
was  capable."  * 

Within  the  present  generation  we  ourselves  have 
witnessed  how  American  Indians,  African  savages, 
and  even  debased  cannibals  of  the  New  Hebrides  have 
been  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Christian's 
God,  and  yet  we  are  told  that  men  like  Abraham  were 
incapable  under  Divine  teaching  of  a  higher  concep- 
tion of  God  than  that  of  "  a  tribal  deity  " — Abraham, 
of  whom  the  Master  said  that  he  rejoiced  to  see  His 
day,  ''  and  he  saw  it  and  was  glad."  The  exigencies 
of  a  false  system  can  alone  account  for  so  devout  and 
sensible  a  man's  identifying  himself  with  such  pro- 
fane folly  as  this.^ 

ress  of  Doctrine  in  the  New  Testament,"  being  the  Bampton 
Lectures  for  1864. 

'  p.  ix.    The  italics  are  mine. 

^  Underlying  it  there  lurks  the  fallacy  of  supposing  that 
God  has  a  name  in  the  sense  in  which  men  have  names.  The 
Dieu   of   the   French    Christian   is   the   same   God  whom  the 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  83 

'^  Log-rolling "  prevails  among  the  pseudo-Critics. 
Some  one  of  them  starts  a  theory  of  this  kind,  and 
the  others  at  once  take  it  up.  And  the  folly  of  it  all 
becomes  positively  grotesque  when  we  remember  that, 
according  to  their  own  hypothesis,  the  books  from 
which  they  derive  these  theories  about  the  Patriarchs 
and  their  religion  were  all  forgeries  of  the  days  of  the 
Kingdom  or  of  the  Exile ! 

This  last  remark  .applies  with  full  force  to  the 
Critics'  use  of  Exodus  vi.  3 :  "  I  appeared  unto  Abra- 
ham, unto  Isaac,  and  unto  Jacob,  as  God  Almighty, 
but  as  to  My  name  Jehovah  I  was  not  known  to 
them."  ^  Moreover,  the  ordinary  reader  will  find  in 
these  words  a  complete  refutation  of  the  "  tribal 
deity"  theory  (unless  "God  Almighty"  be  a  tribal 
deity),  and  he  will  certainly  not  read  it  as  if  it  were 
a  newspaper  ''  agony  column "  announcement  that 
God  Almighty  was  changing  His  tiame !  Its  meaning 
is  simple  and  obvious.  Jehovah  was  the  covenant 
name,  and  God  was  now  about  to  prove  to  His  people 
by  practical  deliverance  and  blessing  what  it  meant  to 
have  a  covenant  God. 

The  reverence  with  which  Christians  regard  every 
part  of  the  Bible  often  leads  them  to  give  a  forced 
meaning  or  a  false  prominence  to  isolated  texts.  But 
the  Critics  are  incomparably  the  worst  offenders  in 

English  Christian  worships.  And  the  God  of  the  Patriarchs 
differed  from  the  "  Marduk  "  of  Babylon,  not  because  of  the 
name,  but  because,  in  contrast  with  all  mere  tribal  deities, 
He  was  the  true  and  living  God,  "  the  God  of  glory  "  (Acts 
vii.  2),  the  God  who  made  the  heavens  and  the  earth. 
^  R.  V.  margin. 


84  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

this  respect.  They  disparage  the  Bible  and  disregard 
much  of  its  plainest  teaching,  and  yet  they  have  a 
stock  selection  of  perverted  texts  which  they  revere 
with  the  blind  devotion  of  fetish-worshippers. 

The  passage  last  quoted  is  an  instance  of  thisj 
Deuteronomy  iv.  19  is  another.  We  have  seen  the  use 
made  of  it  in  "  Babel  and  Bible,"  and  here  it  is  pa- 
raded again.  Here  are  the  words :  "  Lest  thou  lift  up 
thine  eyes  unto  heaven,  and  when  thou  seest  the  sun, 
and  the  moon,  and  the  stars,  even  all  the  host  of 
heaven,  shouldest  be  driven  to  worship  them,  and  serve 
them,  which  the  Lord  thy  God  hath  divided  unto  all 
nations  under  the  whole  heaven."  Upon  which  Dr. 
Smith  writes :  "'Even  so  monotheistic  a  book  as  Deu- 
teronomy speaks  (iv.  19)  of  the  heathen  gods  allotted 
or  assigned  to  their  various  peoples  by  Jehovah  Him- 
self— a  statement  of  which  the  only  possible  expla- 
nation is  that  the  writer  has  arrived  at  a  stage  of 
belief  or  conception  intermediate  between  that  o£ 
the  reality  of  heathen  deities  and  that  of  their  un- 
reality." 

"  The  only  possible  explanation,"  mark.  And  yet  it 
may  be  doubted  whether  anyone  except  a  Critic  with 
a  hobby  would  deem  the  suggested  explanation  "  Pos- 
sible." Possible  it  might  be,  perhaps,  if  the  text  read 
"  to  all  other  peoples."  But  the  plain  words  are  that 
God  distributed  the  heavenly  luminaries  to  give  light 
to  ''all  the  peoples  [Israel  included]  under  the  whole 
heaven." 

Here  is  another;  in  David's  appeal  to  Saul  he  said, 
"  They  have  driven  me  out  this  day  that  I  should  not 
cleave  unto  the  inheritance  of  Jehovah,  saying,  Go, 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  85 

serve  other  gods."  ^  Upon  which  Professor  Smith's 
gloss  is  that  the  worship  of  Jehovah  "  was  regarded 
even  by  a  national  leader  like  David  as  confined  to  His 
people's  territory."-  Let  the  reader  judge.  Possibly 
the  words  will  rather  suggest  to  him  the  indignant 
answer  which  Professor  Smith  himself  might  have 
made  if  the  General  Assembly  had  expelled  him  and 
told  him  to  go  over  to  the  Rationalists. 

I  might  make  many  additions  to  this  list  of  misread 
texts,  but  the  most  flagrantly  ignorant  one  of  all  shall 
be  my  last.  Some  of  the  principal  heresies  of  the 
Critics  depend  on  the  assumption  that  the  Pentateuch 
is  authentic;  and  yet  when  the  exigencies  of  their 
theories  require  it,  they  quote  Jeremiah  vii.  22  to  prove 
"  that  Jehovah  did  not  give  directions  to  the  nation 
when  they  were  brought  out  of  Egypt  concerning 
sacrifices." 

The  Prophet's  words  are :  "  I  spake  not  unto  your 
fathers,  nor  commanded  them  in  the  day  that  I 
brought  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  concerning 
burnt-offerings  or  sacrifices."  But  this  merely  recites 
a  fact  which  is  as  plainly  recorded  on  the  open  page 
of  the  book  of  Exodus  as  is  the  Exodus  itself.  The 
ritual  of  the  law  had  nothing  to  do  with  Israel's  re- 
demption; it  was  given  to  a  people  already  redeemed 
and  brought  into  covenant  relationship  with  God. 

^  I  Sam.  xxvi.  19. 

'  Pamphlet,  p.  10.  He  goes  on  to  quote  i  Sam.  xix.  13  as 
further  proving  his  point.  That  passage  merely  indicates  the 
notorious  fact  that  the  Israelites  were  given  to  idolatry,  and  the 
further  fact  that  Michal  regarded  her  "  teraphim  "  as  a  mere 
doll.  Fancy  a  devout  Roman  Catholic  using  an  image  of  the 
Virgin  Mary  for  such  a  purpose! 


86  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

The  spiritual  Christian  sees  a  deep  significance  in 
this;  but  the  fact  is  patent  to  any  intelHgent  reader. 
Here  was  the  announcement  entrusted  to  Moses  at  the 
Exodus :  ''  If  ye  will  obey  My  voice  indeed,  and  keep 
My  covenant  ...  ye  shall  be  unto  Me  a  kingdom 
of  priests,  and  an  holy  nation.  These  are  the  words 
which  thou  shalt  speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel."  ^ 
And  in  the  passage  already  cited  Jeremiah  was  merely 
quoting  this.  Here  are  his  words :  "  I  spake  not  unto 
your  fathers  .  .  .  concerning  burnt-offerings  or 
sacrifices;  but  this  thing  commanded  I  them,  saying, 
Obey  My  voice,  and  I  will  be  your  God  and  ye  shall 
be  My  people." 

But  what  concerns  us  here  is  not  so  much  Professor 
Smith's  book  as  the  official  pamphlet  on  which  the 
Assembly's  decision  was  taken.  For  the  question  is 
not  the  heresies  of  an  individual,  but  the  apostasy  of  a 
Church.  That  "  the  receiver  is  as  bad  as  the  thief  " 
is  not  the  view  of  Scotland  Yard.  The  thief  may  steal 
under  the  pressure  of  poverty  or  strong  temptation; 
the  receiver  acts  deliberately,  and  is  therefore  very 
much  worse  than  the  thief.  Professor  Smith's  lapse 
recalls  the  dictum  of  Coleridge :  "  Call  no  man  heretic 
because  his  creed  is  heretical " ;  but  the  Assembly's 
action  admits  of  no  palliation  or  excuse.  To  reprint 
the  pamphlet  here  is  of  course  impracticable,  but  the 
following  extracts  will  suffice. 

The  first  deals  with  the  opening  chapter  of  Gene- 
sis : — 

"  Whether  the  ultimate  source  of  the  materials  employed 
in  Genesis  i.-xi.   be  Babylonian   or   not   there   is   agreement 

^Exod.  xix.  5,  6. 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  87 

amongst  scholars  that  they  are  drawn  from  early  Semitic 
folk-lore — for  the  contents  of  which  '  myth  and  legend '  are 
in  oixr  language  the  most  proper  terms.  In  such  stories  early 
peoples  expressed  their  intellectual  conceptions  of  the  crea- 
tion of  the  world  and  of  its  Divine  government."  ^ 

"  There  is  agreement  amongst  scholars."  A  more 
monstrous  misstatement  was  never  uttered,  for 
scholarship  is  not  the  monopoly  of  the  pseudo-Critics. 
Let  that  pass,  however,  for  the  General  Assembly  of 
the  United  Free  Church  accepted  it.  But  has  that 
Church  lost  the  truth  which  we  used  to  be  taught  in 
Sunday  School,  that  the  Old  Testament  is  the  history, 
not  of  man,  but  of  the  Abrahamic  race;  and  that  its 
first  eleven  chapters  are  not  history  in  any  true  sense, 
but  the  preface  to  the  history — the  Divine  record  of 
certain  facts  on  which  the  history  is  based?' 

The  paragraph  from  which  the  foregoing  extract  is 
taken,  closes  as  follows : — 

"  If,  as  everybody  admits,  the  Spirit  of  God  conveys  truth 
to  us  through  such  forms,  am  I  to  be  blamed  for  asserting  that 
He  conveyed  truth  to  us,  in  the  first  eleven  chapters  of  Gene- 
sis, through  kindred  conceptions  of  Nature  and  its  struc- 
ture? "^ 

This  is  simply  astounding.  These  words  are  pref- 
aced by  noticing  that  "  Revelation  speaks  of  the  sun 

^p.   12. 

^This  disposes  of  Dr.  Smith's  argument  from  the  date  of 
the  Tower  of  Babel  (book,  p.  91;  pamphlet,  p.  12).  Biblical 
chronology  begins  with  Abraham ;  and  while  there  is  evidently 
a  mystic  scheme  of  chronology  covering  the  whole,  there  is 
no  certainty  as  to  the  actual  period  between  Adam  and  Abra- 
ham.    (See  "  Bible  and  Modern  Criticism,"  pp.  163,  164.) 

^p.  12. 


88  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

moving  round  the  earth/'  and  that  "  the  earth  is  con- 
ceived as  founded  upon  the  seas,"  etc.,  etc.  All  which 
is  perplexing  and  distressing  to  the  Critics,  though  it 
weighs  nothing  in  the  court  of  common-sense.  Here, 
however,  we  learn  that  the  Genesis  legends  have  a 
Divine  sanction !  But  surely  if  "  God  conveyed  truth 
to  us  "  in  and  by  legends,  they  must  be  true,  as  legends 
sometimes  are.  And,  moreover,  the  level-headed  man 
of  the  world  will  here  be  of  the  same  opinion  as  the 
spiritual  Christian,  that  if  God  is  responsible  for 
Genesis  i.-xi.,  we  may  be  sure  that  in  those  chapters 
we  have,  not  legends  at  all,  but  facts  on  which  the 
legends  were  founded. 

We  now  come  to  the  "  Patriarchal  narratives,"  and 
here  we  read : — 


"  What  I  have  tried  to  show  with  regard  to  them  is  this. 
The  documents  which  contain  these  stories  were  written  many- 
centuries  after  the  age  of  the  Patriarchs;  they  reflect  much 
of  the  religious  experience  and  conception  of  Israel  during  the 
period  of  the  Double  Kingdom  and  even  later  ages.  The 
discoveries  of  Egyptian  and  Mesopotamian  archaeology  pro- 
vide us  with  evidence  of  the  possibility  (or  even  credibility) 
only  of  the  main  outlines  of  the  Patriarchal  narratives,  but 
do  not  verify  any  of  the  detailed  events  nor  furnish  a  single 
proof  of  the  personal  existence  of  the  Patriarchs  themselves. 
If  the  memorialists  can  prove  criticism  to  be  wrong  in  any  of 
its  conclusions  relevant  to  this  point;  if  they  can  cite  any 
archaeological  evidence  for  the  personal  reality  of  Abraham^ 
Isaac,  or  Jacob,  nobody  will  be  more  glad  than  myself.  My 
whole  prejudice  and  bias  have  been  in  favour  of  the  his- 
torical accuracy  of  the  Patriarchal  stories.  But  years  of  re- 
search and  study  have  convinced  me,  that  in  the  present  state 
of  human  knowledge  such  a  line  of  proof  is  impossible. 

"  I  have,  however,  admitted  in  the  volume  (p.  io6)  that  it 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  89 

is  extremely  probable  that  the  stories  of  the  Patriarchs  have 
at  the  heart  of  them  historical  elements."  ^ 

And  again: — 

"  The  traditions  of  the  life  and  work  of  Moses  have  come 
down  to  us  in  the  same  documents  which  contain  the  Pa- 
triarchal narratives — with  the  addition  of  course  of  the  book 
of  Deuteronomy — that  is  to  say,  in  documents  written  from 
four  to  seven  centuries  after  the  Mosaic  period  itself  (if  we 
take  this  to  have  been  the  thirteenth  century  B.C.).  The  Pen- 
tateuchal  history  of  Moses  is  therefore  in  need  of  the  same 
criticism  as  the  Patriarchal  narratives."  ^ 

Under  English  law  the  testimony  of  informers  is 
always  received  with  caution,  and  unless  it  be  corrob- 
orated in  some  material  respect  by  independent  evi- 
dence it  is  entirely  ignored.  And  the  Bible  is  here 
treated  precisely  as  an  informer's  evidence  is  treated 
in  our  courts  of  justice.  The  Old  Testament  has 
obtained  sufficient  confirmation  from  pagan  sources  to 
entitle  it  to  a  hearing;  but  yet  its  testimony  must  be 
received  with  caution  and  reserve.  And  if  at  any 
point  it  clashes,  or  seems  to  clash,  with  pagan  inscrip- 
tions, the  Bible,  and  not  the  inscriptions,  must  give 
way. 

Judicial  experience  and  skill  are  needed  to  direct  a 
jury  what  they  may  accept  and  what  they  should  re- 
fuse. And  here  too  we  need  a  counsellor  to  guide  us. 
Men  of  the  highest  eminence  as  scholars  tell  us  that 
the  Patriarchs  were  only  lunar  myths;  but  we  have 
the  authority  of  Professor  George  Adam  Smith  of  the 
Glasgow   College  for  believing,  notwithstanding  the 

'p.  13.  'fi.  14. 


90  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

absence  of  pagan  corroboration,  that  Abraham  and 
Moses  really  existed! 

And  it  is  not  the  Bible  only  that  is  thus  disparaged. 
[The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  Himself  is  here  treated  like  "  a 
common  informer."  His  testimony  counts  for  nothing. 
From  the  first  sentence  of  this  pamphlet  to  the  last. 
He  is  absolutely  ignored. 

A  lawyer  has  sometimes  to  advise  his  client  that 
judgment  must  go  against  him  unless  the  evidence  of 
some  important  witness  on  the  other  side  can  be  dis- 
credited or  explained  away.  And  so  it  is  here.  If 
"  the  assured  results  of  modern  criticism  "  are  to  hold 
their  ground,  there  is  one  witness  who  must  be  got  rid 
of.  And  that  witness  is  no  other  than  the  Master 
Himself. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

**/^^ETTLING  the  issues"  is  one  of  the  essential 
^^^  preHminaries  to  a  lawsuit.  The  object  of  the 
V^_J  "  pleadings "  is  to  ascertain  with  precision 
the  matter  in  dispute.  And  anything  alleged  upon  one 
side  and  admitted  upon  the  other  is  taken  as  proved, 
and  no  evidence  is  needed  to  establish  it. 

Now  it  is  neither  denied  nor  even  questioned,  and 
therefore  it  may  be  accepted  as  indisputable,  that  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  regarded  the  Hebrew  Bible  as 
possessing  Divine  authority.  It  would  unduly  strain 
His  words  to  construe  them  as  vetoing  inquiry  upon 
matters  which  fall  within  the  scope  of  true  criticism; 
such,  for  example,  as  whether  the  book  of  Genesis 
was  not  in  part»a  compilation  of  earlier  documents,  or 
whether  the  book  of  Isaiah  may  not  include  the 
prophecies  of  some  other  prophet.^ 

In  a  well-known  passage  Josephus  describes  the 
spirit  in  which  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  were  treated  by 
his  nation.  Here  are  his  words :  "  Although  so  great 
an  interval  of  time  has  now  passed  [since  they  were 
written],  not  a  soul  has  ventured  either  to  add,  or  to 

^I  do  not  allude  to  the  sixteen  "Second  Isaiahs"  theory^ 
or  the  cutting  up  of  the  book  into  fragments — all  this  only 
illustrates  the  fact  that  eminent  scholars  may  be  very  silly — 
but  whether  the  later  section  of  Isaiah  may  not  be  by  a  later 
prophet.  As  a  matter  of  evidence,  it  is  hopelessly  untenable. 
(See  "Bible  and  Modern  Criticism,"  pp.  45-47.) 

91 


92  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

remove,  or  to  alter  a  syllable;  and  it  is  the  instinct  of 
every  Jew,  from  the  day  of  his  birth,  to  consider  those 
[Scriptures]  as  the  teaching  of  God,  to  abide  by  them, 
and,  if  need  be,  cheerfully  to  lay  down  life  in  their 
behalf." 

It  was  to  men  whose  minds  were  saturated  with  this 
spirit  and  these  beliefs  that  our  Lord  addressed  such 
words  as  these : — 

"  The  Scripture  cannot  be  broken."  * 

"  Verily  I  say  unto  you.  Till  heaven  and  earth  pass, 
one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  law, 
till  all  be  fulfilled."' 

The  question  is  often  asked.  What  were  "  the  Scrip- 
tures "  tO'  which  the  Lord  so  often  referred  ?  Some 
books  of  seeming  repute  aver  that  the  Jewish  Canon 
was  at  that  time  not  yet  settled,  and  that  it  certainly 
included  apocryphal  writings  which  have  no  Divine 
sanction.  In  answer  to  this  question,  and  in  refutation 
of  these  false  statements,  I  will  again  appeal  to  a 
writer  of  high  authority  with  the  Critics. 

In  the  "  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament "  the  Bishop 
of  Winchester  uses  these  words : — 

"  The  full  complement  of  Scripture  had  been  arrived  at  a 
century  before  the  coming  of  Him  who  came  not  to  destroy- 
but  to  fulfil  '  the  Law  and  the  Prophets.'  ...  It  was  thus 
divinely  ordered  that  we  should  be  enabled  to  know  the  exact 
limits  of  those  Scriptures  upon  which  has  rested  the  sanction 
conveyed  by  the  usage  and  blessing  of  our  Divine  Master,  and 
of  which  He  spake,  '  these  are  they  which  bear  witness  of 
Me  '  (John  v.  39) .  Thus,  too,  an  effectual  barrier  was  raised 
to  protect  the  Scriptures  of  the  Apostles  against  the  encroach- 

Uohn  X.  35.  ''Matt.  v.  18. 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  9S 

merits  of  any  unauthorised  additions.  The  use  of  the  LXX. 
version  familiarised  the  Christian  Church  with  writings  that 
never  found  a  place  in  the  Hebrew  Canon;  but  through  the 
action  of  the  Jewish  doctors  at  the  close  of  the  first  century 
A.  J).,  there  was  never  any  doubt  what  the  limits  of  the  He- 
brew Canon  were." 

Let  it  be  kept  clearly  in  view,  then,  that  the  Scrip- 
tures, declared  by  our  Divine  Lord  to  have  Divine 
authority,  were  identical  with  those  contained  in  the 
Old  Testament  of  the  Christian's  Bible. 

For  eighteen  centuries  the  teaching  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  was  held  to  be  decisive  by  Christians  of 
every  name.  Indeed  the  mere  refusal  to  accept  His 
teaching  placed  anyone  outside  the  pale.  But  now 
all  this  is  changed.  His  testimony  to  the  Divine  au- 
thority of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  is  full  and  clear ;  but 
the  new  theology  of  the  Kenosis  ^  bids  us  disregard  it. 
For,  we  are  told.  He  so  completely  "  emptied  Him- 
self "  that  He  held  the  position  of  a  Jew  of  His  time 
and  shared  the  prevailing  ignorance  and  error  respect- 
ing the  very  Scriptures  which  it  was  His  mission  to 
fulfil. 

This,  moreover,  is  enforced  by  catch  questions,  as, 
for  example,  whether  our  Divine  Lord  could  have 
solved  problems  in  higher  mathematics.  To  some  of 
us  such  questions  seem  quite  as  irrelevant  as  they  are 
irreverent.    As  the  Bishop  of  Durham  writes: — 

"  The  most  cautious,  the  most  worshipping,  theology  may 
hold  that  He  consented,  in  His  Humanity,  to  limitations  of 

^  Kenosis  is  a  Greek  word  meaning  an  emptying.  The  verb 
is  used  in  Philippians  ii.  7. 


94  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

His  conscious  knowledge,  and  to  silence  outside  those  bounds. 
But  here  He  appears  as  ignorant  with  that  sort  of  ignorance 
which  so  profoundly  impairs  the  whole  value  of  a  teacher — 
the  ignorance  of  the  man  who  does  not  know  where  his  knowl- 
edge ends,  and  so  makes  confident  affirmations,  and  draws  con- 
fident inferences,  where  his  basis  as  to  facts  is  unsound."  ^ 

In  contrast  with  these  weighty  words,  the  following 
is  a  statement  of  the  pseudo-Critics'  views,  taken  from 
their  most  accredited  text-book :  "  Both  Christ  and  the 
Apostles  or  writers  of  the  New  Testament  held  the 
current  Jewish  notions  respecting  the  Divine  authority 
and  revelation  of  the  Old  Testament."  ^  In  all  their 
treatises  this  profanity  is  either  expressed  or  implied. 

I  want  the  intelligent  reader  to  realise  what  it  means. 
When  he  opens  the  Gospels  he  is  no  longer  to  read  the 
words  which  fell  from  the  lips  of  the  Lord  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ  as  being  the  authoritative  decla- 
ration of  Divine  truth,  but  merely  the  expression  of 
^*  current  Jewish  notions." 

If  this  canon  be  accepted,  no  free  and  fearless 
thinker  will  allow  its  application  to  be  arbitrarily 
limited.  It  must  apply  not  merely  to  His  teaching 
about  Judaism,  but  equally  to  His  teaching  about 
Christianity.  If  the  teaching  was  unreliable  as  regards 
the  past,  it  must  be  still  more  worthless  as  regards  the 
future.  And  if  His  words  were  false  when  He  spoke 
of  earthly  things,  how  can  we  take  them  as  true  when 
He  spoke  of  heavenly  things?  The  whole  founda- 
tions of  our  faith  are  thus  destroyed. 

*  Preface  to  the  author's  "  Bible  and  Modern  Criticism." 
'  Hastings'  Bible  Dictionary,  article  "  Old  Testament,"  p. 
6oi. 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  95 

But,  it  will  be  said,  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists 
were  inspired.  Will  the  objector  again  refer  to  the 
Critics'  confession  of  unfaith.  "  The  Apostles  or 
writers  of  the  New  Testament "  shared  the  "  current 
Jewish  notions  "  of  their  Master.  They  were  not  the 
inspired  heralds  of  His  truth,  but  the  dupes  of  His 
false  teaching. 

But  the  objector  possibly  may  plead  that  the  Critics 
overstate  their  case;  that  the  Kenosis  ended  with  the 
Cross,  and  that  after  Pentecost  the  Apostles  spoke, 
and  the  Evangelists  wrote,  in  the  light  of  inspiration. 
But  this  explodes  the  Kenosis  theory  altogether. 
First,  because  their  testimony  to  the  Divine  authority 
of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  was  as  explicit  as  that  of 
the  Master  Himself.  And  secondly,  because  (to  waive 
all  other  questions)  from  the  beginning  of  the  Lord's 
public  ministry  the  Spirit  was  given  to  Him  "  without 
measure." 

But  more  than  this,  there  are  three  great  facts 
which  the  Critics  here  ignore — and,  as  we  have  seen, 
it  is  their  way  to  ignore  anything  that  does  not  fit  in 
with  their  preconceived  conclusions.  The  first  is  the 
Temptation,  the  second  is  the  Transfiguration,  and 
the  third  is  the  Resurrection  and  the  ministry  of  the 
Forty  Days. 

In  one  respect  at  least  "  the  current  Jewish  notions  " 
of  nineteen  centuries  ago  might  shame  the  ignorance 
and  error  of  "  the  Christian  religion."  If  "  they  called 
the  Master  of  the  House  Beelzebub  "  it  was  because 
the  Devil  of  Jewish  theology  was  the  Satan  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  not  the  monster  of  old  Babylonian  paganism. 
The  Satan  of  the  Temptation  was  the  false  Messiah, 


96  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

the  God  of  this  world — the  awful  Being  who  directs, 
not  its  crimes,  but  its  religion;  who  "  fashions  himself 
as  an  angel  of  light " ;  who  comes  to  us,  as  Luther 
says,  with  an  open  Bible.  How  Satan  would  have 
triumphed  if,  when  the  true  Messiah  quoted  Deute- 
ronomy, he  could  have  shown  Him  to  be  the  dupe  of 
"  current  Jewish  notions  respecting  the  Divine  author- 
ity of  the  Old  Testament " !  "  Every  word  that  pro- 
ceedeth  out  of  the  mouth  of  God  "  was  the  Master's 
estimate  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  ''  It  is  written  " 
was  with  Him  an  end  of  controversy  on  every  point. ^ 

"  When  we  were  with  Him  in  the  Holy  Mount,"  the 
inspired  Apostle  writes,  "  we  were  eye-witnesses  of 
His  majesty.  For  He  received  from  God  the  Father 
honour  and  glory."  Here  at  least  there  could  be  no 
question  of  the  Kenosis.  For  as  Moses  and  Elias 
"  talked  with  Him  "  of  the  Scriptures  He  had  come  to 
fulfil,  ''  the  law  and  the  prophets "  were  in  very 
touch  with  Him.  And  "  from  the  excellent  glory 
there  came  such  a  voice  to  Him,  '  This  is  My  beloved 
Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased.' "  And  the  words 
were  added,  "  Hear  ye  Him."  ^ 

Hear  ye  whom?  An  ignorant  Jew,  the  dupe  of 
"  current  Jewish  notions  about  the  Divine  authority 
and  revelation  of  the  Old  Testament " — a  teacher 
whose  apprehension  of  the  Scriptures  was  less  intelli- 
gent than  that  of  present-day  professors  in  our  theo- 
logical colleges — than  that  of  any  of  the  lads  who  have 
the  inestimable  benefit  of  their  teaching! 

But  this  is  not  all.    The  same  Gospels  which  record 

*Matt.  iv.  I -10. 

*2  Pet.  i.  16-18;  Matt.  xvii.  1-5;  Luke  ix.  28-35. 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  97 

the  Ministry  of  the  Humiliation  contain  also  the 
record  of  words  uttered  by  our  Divine  Lord  after  the 
resurrection,  when  He  spoke  in  all  the  fulness  of 
Divine  knowledge.  And  in  those  words  He  adopted 
and  confirmed  all  His  previous  teaching  about  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures. 

Here  are  some  of  them: — 

"  *  O  fools,  and  slow  of  heart  to  believe  all  that  the  prophets 
have  spoken !  Ought  not  Christ  to  have  suffered  these  things, 
and  to  enter  into  His  glory?'  And  beginning  at  Moses,  and 
all  the  prophets,  he  expounded  unto  them  in  all  the  scriptures 
the  things  concerning  Himself."  ^ 

And  again: — 

"  '  These  are  the  words  which  I  spake  unto  you,  while  I 
was  yet  with  you,  that  all  things  must  be  fulfilled  which  were 
written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  and  in  the  prophets,  and  in  the 
psalms,  concerning  Me.'  Then  opened  He  their  understand- 
ing, that  they  might  understand  the  scriptures,  and  said  unto 
them,  *  Thus  it  is  written,  and  thus  it  behoved  Christ  to  suffer, 
and  to  rise  from  the  dead  the  third  day.'  "* 

What  answer,  what  explanation,  do  the  Critics  offer 
us  here?  Absolutely  none.  With  astounding  pro- 
fanity and  foll}^  they  declare  that  the  teaching  of  the 
Humiliation  was  marked  by  ignorance  and  error. 
And  the  teaching  of  the  Resurrection  they  ignore 
altogether. 

"  Then  opened  He  their  mind  that  they  might  un- 
derstand the  scriptures."  Upon  the  truth  of  that 
statement,  and  upon  the  reality  of  the  work  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  bringing  to  their  remembrance  all  His 

^Luke  xxiv.  25-27.  'Luke  xxiv.  44-46. 


98  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

teaching,  depends  the  vahie  of  the  New  Testament 
and  of  the  whole  Christian  revelation. 

If  acquaintance  with  the  text  of  Holy  Scripture 
carried  with  it  an  intelligent  apprehension  of  its 
meaning,  the  Jewish  leaders  who  crucified  the  Lord 
would  stand  incomparably  above  the  ablest  of  the 
modern  Critics.  There  was  not  one  of  them  who 
could  not  have  corrected  a  slip  in  the  public  reading 
of  the  sacred  books.  But  because  they  knew  not  "  the 
voices  of  the  prophets  " — or,  in  other  words,  their 
true  meaning — "  they  fulfilled  them  in  condemning 
Him."  1 

In  the  very  nature  of  things  error  is  absurd.  And 
the  absurdity  of  the  figment  that  the  Lord's  estimate 
of  the  Scriptures  was  derived  from  His  contempo- 
raries is  apparent  from  the  fact  that  none  of  His 
contemporaries  understood  the  Scriptures  as  He  in- 
terpreted them.  Not  even  His  own  disciples  "  knew 
the  voices  of  the  prophets " ;  therefore  it  was  that 
the  Cross  was  the  death-blow  to  all  their  hopes. 
Hence  the  words,  "  O  fools,  and  slow  of  heart  to  be- 
lieve all  that  the  prophets  have  spoken."  But  now 
"  He  opened  their  understanding."  And  all  their 
after  testimony,  whether  in  preaching  or  in  the  in- 
spired Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament,  was  the  out- 
come of  that  enlightenment. 

"  He  opened  their  mind  that  they  might  understand 
the  scriptures."  Not  so,  the  Critics  tell  us;  He  left 
them  still  deceived  by  His  erroneous  teaching — the 
dupes  of  "  current  Jewish  notions  about  their  inspira- 
tion and  authority."     His   estimate  of  the  Hebrew 

^Acts  xiii.  27. 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  99 

Scriptures  was  a  false  one ;  and  its  falseness,  the 
Critics  aver,  is  of  such  a  kind  that  it  is  both  dishonour- 
ing to  God  and  mischievous  in  its  evil  influence  upon 
men. 

In  the  days  of  His  humiliation,  so  ignorant  and  de- 
ceived was  He  about  the  very  Scriptures  which  it  was 
His  mission  to  fulfil,  that  any  one  of  us  can  now  revise 
and  correct  His  teaching.  And  though  after  the  resur- 
rection He  had  full  knowledge  of  the  truth,  yet,  from 
motives  of  policy,  He  commissioned  His  Apostles  to 
promulgate  the  error,  thus  leaving  Church  and  world 
to  be  deluded  by  the  fraud  until,  after  eighteen  cen- 
turies, German  Rationalists  discovered  and  exposed  it ! 

This  is  the  issue  raised  by  the  pseudo-Criticism. 
Let  no  one  try  to  evade  it  by  quibbling  about  "  verbal 
inspiration  "  or  the  like.  We  have  got  far  beyond  all 
questions  of  that  kind  now.  What  concerns  us  here 
is  not  the  method  of  the  inspiration,  nor  even  the 
character  of  the  revelation  it  has  given  us ;  but  whether 
we  have  a  Divine  teacher.  It  is  not  the  Bible  that  is  at 
stake,  but  the  Christ  of  the  Bible.  If  '*  criticism  has 
won  its  war,"  the  "  indemnity  "  must  include  the  unre- 
served acknowledgment  that  the  Christian  faith  is 
mere  superstition. 

If  we  hold  the  Church  of  Rome  to  be  outside  the 
pale,  it  is  not  because  its  creeds  are  tainted  by  error — 
for  no  intelligent  Protestant  pretends  that  his  own 
Church  is  perfect  in  this  respect — but  because  the 
distinctive  errors  of  Rome  disparage  and  dishonour 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  Himself.  Therefore  it  is  that 
they  are  rightly  held  to  be  vital. 

But  let  us  be  honest  and  fair  in  this  matter.    How 


100  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

can  we  brand  the  Church  of  Rome  as  an  apostasy  so 
long  as  we  acknowledge  any  Church  which  publicly 
endorses  this  Kenosis  blasphemy,  or  allows  it  to  be 
taught  in  its  colleges  or  preached  from  its  pulpits.^ 

^And  this  is  the  issue  which  in  1902,  by  a  majority  vote, 
was  decided  by  the  successors  of  the  men  who,  in  1843,  under 
the  leadership  of  Chalmers,  seceded  from  the  Church  of 
Scotland  because  they  believed  that  personal  loyalty  to  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  demanded  a  sacrifice  so  tremendous. 
Through  personal  regard  for  a  popular  colleague  they  have 
now  done  a  dishonour  to  the  Lord  so  terrible  that,  in  com- 
parison with  it,  the  "  disruption  "  controversy  sinks  into  in- 
significance. And  I  write  as  one  who  before  even  he  left  the 
nursery  felt  a  thrill  of  enthusiasm  as  he  heard  the  record  of 
that  struggle.  Those  noble  men,  like  the  old  Patriarchs,  went 
out  not  knowing  whither  they  went.  But  their  degenerate 
successors,  enervated  and  corrupted  by  prosperity,  seem  to 
have  inherited  neither  their  heroism  nor  their  faith. 

The  pseudo-Criticism  has  thus  "  won  its  war  "  in  the  United 
Free  Church  of  Scotland.  But  when  the  laity  awake  to  under- 
stand the  issue,  the  majority  who  voted  for  the  heresy  may 
yet  find  it  was  a  Pyrrhic  victory. 

Were  not  the  Lord's  words  in  Matthew  x.  32-38  spoken  for 
such  a  time  as  this?  Let  every  true-hearted  Christian  ponder 
them,  and  act  on  them  by  giving  encouragement  and  support 
to  clergymen  and  ministers  who  "  think  upon  His  Name," 
while  sternly  shutting  his  purse-strings  against  every  man 
who  takes  sides  against  the  Master  in  this  controversy. 


CHAPTER  IX 

A  T    the    time   when    Mr.    Gladstone's    "  Impreg- 

/  \  nable  Rock  of  Holy  Scripture  "  appeared,  he 
Jl  A- used  language  which  seemed  to  imply  that  the 
Old  Testament  controversy  was  no  exception  to  the 
general  rule  that  we  ought  to  keep  an  open  mind  on 
every  question.  I  wrote  to  ask  him  if  such  was  his 
meaning,  as  it  seemed  inconsistent  with  his  book. 
And  the  following  is  an  extract  from  his  reply : — 

"  I  do  not  recommend  an  open  mind  on  the  Old 
Testament,  otherwise  than  as  on  all  questions  we 
ought  according  to  our  opportunities  and  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case  to  have  an  open  mind."  ^ 

In  my  letter  to  Mr.  Gladstone  I  urged  that  even  in 
human  affairs  there  were  some  questions  about  which 
no  man  worthy  of  respect  would  keep  an  open  mind. 

^  This  characteristic  letter  seems  worth  preserving,  apart 
from  the  special  question  at  issue.  It  reminds  me  of  an  Irish 
story.  A  peasant  refused  to  vote  for  his  priest's  candidate  at 
an  election.  "  I  don't  say  I'll  do  it,"  said  the  priest,  "  and  I 
don't  say  I  won't,  but  take  care  I  don't  turn  you  into  a  rat 
when  you're  crossing  your  door  going  home."  The  man  had 
a  bad  time  with  his  wife  on  the  road :  "  What  was  to  become 
of  her  and  the  farm  if  he  was  turned  into  a  rat?  "  But  "  he 
wasn't  afraid:  not  all  the  priests  in  Ireland  could  turn  him 
into  a  rat."  This  lasted  till  he  got  home,  when  he  stopped 
dead  and  whispered  to  his  wife,  "  Sure  you  might  just  slip  in 
in  front  of  me,  Biddy  darlint,  and  tie  up  the  dog !  " 

101 


102  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

What  a  scoundrel  a  man  would  be,  for  example,  who 
treated  in  this  way  the  question  of  his  wife's  honour! 
Inquiry  may  be  needed;  and  if  facts  confront  him  he 
must  act  on  them.  But  he  makes  no  delay  in  deciding 
the  matter  one  way  or  other ;  and  if  he  finds  the  accu- 
sation to  be  false,  he  clings  to  her  with  deepened  confi- 
dence. 

And  to  the  Christian  the  honour  of  his  Lord  is  as 
dear  as  the  honour  of  his  wife.  We  accept  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  not  by  grace  of  the  Critics,  but  in  virtue 
of  the  imprimatur  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Let  this 
fact  be  kept  steadily  in  view,  unembarrassed  by  either 
sophistry  or  clamour. 

That  imprimatur  is  no  bar,  I  again  repeat,  to  the 
most  free  and  searching  inquiry  and  criticism,  pro- 
vided it  be  intelligent,  and  honest,  and  reverent.  For 
*' the  Mosaic  Books,"  in  their  outward  form,  have  sur- 
vived the  vicissitudes  of  five-and-thirty  centuries,  and 
they  may  have  suffered  at  the  hands  of  copyists,  and 
possibly,  too,  of  pious  editors.  ,But  to  raise  the  issue 
whether  they  are  God-breathed  Scriptures  is  to  bring 
into  question  the  authority  of  Christ.  *'  If  ye  believed 
Moses,  ye  would  believe  Me,  for  he  wrote  of  Me."  By 
the  Master's  acceptance  of  them,  all  questions  about 
their  origin  and  character  are  set  at  rest. 

When  theologians  quarrel  over  questions  of  another 
kind,  such,  for  example,  as  whether  certain  Divine 
prophecies  contained  in  the  book  of  Isaiah  were  ut- 
tered by  that  prophet  or  by  some  other,  "  A  plague  on 
both  your  houses  "  describes  the  attitude  of  ordinary 
men  of  the  world.  But  no  honest-minded  man  will 
dismiss  the  present  issue  in  this  way.    For  the  question 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  103 

involved  is  whether  writings  which  our  Divine  Lord 
reverenced  as  God-breathed,  to  be  acted  on  and  ful- 
filled in  His  life  and  ministry  and  death,  are  not  in 
fact  forgeries  and  frauds. 

The  book  of  Leviticus  opens  thus :  "  And  the  Lord 
called  unto  Moses  and  spake  unto  him  out  of  the  taber- 
nacle of  the  congregation."  And  as  we  open  the  book 
of  Numbers  we  read :  "  And  the  Lord  spake  unto 
Moses  in  the  wilderness  of  Sinai,  in  the  tabernacle  of 
the  congregation,  on  the  first  day  of  the  second  month, 
in  the  second  year  after  they  were  come  out  of  the 
land  of  Egypt."  And  throughout  these  two  books 
this  formula  is  repeated  more  than  a  hundred  times; 
and  the  occurrences  of  "  the  great  and  terrible  name  " 
of  Jehovah  are  nearer  a  thousand  than  a  hundred — 
a  name  held  in  such  supreme  reverence  by  the  Jews 
that  they  never  utter  it,  even  in  reading  the  Scriptures. 

But  according  to  "  the  critical  hypothesis "  these 
books  are  a  mere  romance.  There  never  was  a 
"  tabernacle  of  the  congregation  " ;  and  all  the  words 
thus  put  into  the  mouth  of  Jehovah  are  the  invention 
of  priests. 

The  characteristic  honesty  of  the  Anglo-Saxon 
mind  shows  itself  in  antipathy  to  priestcraft.  But  in 
fairness  we  must  admit  that  the  evil  records  of  priest- 
craft contain  nothing  quite  so  bad  as  this.  If  the 
Critics'  theory  is  right,  there  is  a  thorough  wantonness 
about  the  profanity  of  the  "  Mosaic  Books."  Some  of 
the  chapters  indeed  might  compare  in  this  respect 
with  the  utterances  of  that  sort  of  blasphemer  who 
cannot  put  two  sentences  together  without  dragging  in 
the  Sacred  Name. 


104  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

And  He  whom  Christians  own  as  their  Divine  Lord 
and  Saviour  was  deceived  and  duped  by  this  fraud ! 
And  it  is  owing  to  His  baneful  teaching  that  these 
books  are  still  read  in  every  Christian  Church  and 
every  Christian  home! 

I  make  no  apology  for  again  recurring  to  this,  for 
it  cannot  be  repeated  too  often  or  kept  too  prominently 
in  view.  There  was  no  reserve  in  the  Lord's  claim 
to  Divine  authority  for  all  His  teaching.  "  The 
Father  which  sent  Me,  He  gave  Me  a  commandment 
what  I  should  say  and  what  I  should  speak."  ^  "  The 
words  that  I  speak  unto  you  I  speak  not  of  Myself  " ;  ^ 
"  Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away,  but  My  words 
shall  not  pass  away."  ^  These  are  but  specimens  of 
His  frequent  utterances  to  the  same  effect.  But  if  the 
Critics  are  right,  all  this  was  bombast,  worthy  of  a 
new  "  Elijah  "  from  Chicago.  They  tell  us  that  He 
was  duped  by  error  so  transparent  that  any  one  of  us 
who  has  honesty  and  brains  can  detect  it;  and  that 
when  afterwards  He  came  to  discover  it  was  error 
He  adhered  to  it  on  grounds  of  policy. 

Carefully  veiled  or  entirely  ignored  by  some  of  the 
Critics,  this  is  essential  to  their  scheme,  and  without 
it  their  whole  position  is  untenable. 

If  immorality  can  induce  its  intended  victims  to 
listen  to  its  vile  overtures,  its  triumph  is  almost  as- 
sured. And  the  pseudo-Criticism  has  practically 
"  won  its  war  "  when  Christians  are  betrayed  into  a 
discussion  of  this  blasphemy.  My  purpose  is  not 
to  discuss  it,  but  to  denounce  it.  These  pages  are  not 
written  to  prove  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  has  not 

*John  xii.  49.  ^John  xiv.  10.  ^Luke  xxi.  ZZ- 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  105 

misled  and  deceived  His  people  by  His  teaching  about 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures :  their  aim  is  to  impress  on 
men  that  this  is  the  real  issue  in  this  controversy. 

Surely  the  time  must  come  when  men  of  intelligence 
and  common-sense  will  awake  from  this  nightmare, 
and,  coming  out  into  the  open  light  of  truth  and 
reason,  will  boldly  take  sides  and  choose  between 
Christianity  and  RationaHsm.  For  the  one  position 
is  as  impregnable  as  the  other.  More  than  this,  while 
they  who  own  the  authority  of  the  Bible  are  con- 
sistent and  logical  in  their  faith,  they  who  take  refuge 
in  the  authority  of  the  Church  are  consistent  and 
logical  in  their  superstition.  But  the  man  who  has 
neither  a  Divinely  accredited  Bible  nor  a  Divinely  ac- 
credited Church,  and  yet  believes  in  Christianity,  is 
intellectually  contemptible.  The  great  elephant  of  his 
transcendental  creed  has  not  even  a  great  tortoise  to 
rest  upon ! 

A  clear  and  fearless  thinker  like  Dr.  Harnack  takes 
his  stand  firmly  on  the  bedrock  of  Rationalism.  And 
the  Christian  rests  with  confidence  upon  the  sure 
Word  of  his  Divine  Lord.  But  (to  parody  the  poet's 
words)  this  sort  of  man  has  too  much  ''  scholarship  " 
for  the  one  side,  and  too  much  Christianity  for  the 
other,  and  so  he  helplessly  "  hangs  between." 

There  are  many  who,  by  some  evil  instinct,  delight 
in  every  attack  upon  the  Bible,  just  as  there  are  some 
who  have  a  ready  ear  for  what  tends  to  a  wife's  dis- 
credit. For  such  we  have  nothing  but  contempt.  But 
I  appeal  to  the  mass  of  men,  who  reverence  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  Him  of  whom  the  Scriptures  speak,  not  to 
allow  themselves  to  be  coerced  or  cajoled  into  accept- 


106  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

ing  the  decrees  of  the  pseudo-Criticism  by  the  blatant 
boast  that  all  intelligence  and  all  scholarship  are  upon 
its  side.^ 

By  a  certain  social  coterie  the  term  "  Society ''  is 
limited  to  those  who  are  within  its  ranks;  and  with 
the  pseudo-Critics  the  test  of  scholarship  is  acceptance 
of  their  position.  But  even  if  the  boast  were  as  well 
founded  as  it  is  false,  it  would  weigh  nothing  with 
the  Christian,  for  he  would  remember  the  Master's 
words,  "  I  thank  Thee,  O  Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and 
earth,  because  Thou  hast  hid  these  things  from  the 
wise  and  prudent,  and  hast  revealed  them  unto 
babes."  ' 

Nineteen  centuries  have  passed  since  Christ  was 
born  in  Bethlehem,  and  yet  His  name  is  still  unknown 
to  half  the  population  of  the  world.  In  comparatively 
recent  years  the  Church  has  been  aroused  to  its  respon- 
sibilities in  this  respect;  and,  as  the  result,  the  Gospel 
has  achieved  successes  unparalleled  since  Apostolic 
days.  But  it  is  not  "  the  Christian  religion  "  of  the 
Critics  which  has  won  these  triumphs.  Faith  in  the 
Bible  as  the  Word  of  God  has  forced  men  out;  and 
God,  whose  Word  it  is,  has  placed  His  seal  upon  their 

^  As  I  write  my  eye  falls  on  the  Times  obituary  notice  of 
the  late  Provost  of  Trinity  College,  Dublin  (23d  January^ 
1904).  It  justly  says  that  "  It  is  given  to  few  men  to  attain 
to  the  first  rank  in  two  distinct  provinces,"  but  Dr.  Salmon's 
world-wide  fame  as  a  mathematician  was  equalled  by  his 
fame  as  a  theologian.  He  was  deemed  "  the  most  learned  of 
Irish  theologians  since  Ussher's  time."  In  view  of  the  attitude 
maintained  by  such  men,  the  sceptic's  claim  to  have  all  the 
scholarship  is  absolutely  intolerable. 

'Matt.  xi.  25. 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  107 

testimony.  But  this  sceptical  crusade  against  the 
Bible  must  tend  to  kill  all  enthusiasm  in  missionary 
work. 

And  more  than  this,  in  countries  like  China  and 
India,  where  missionaries  come  face  to  face  with  edu- 
cated men  who  are  in  touch  with  the  religious  thought 
of  Christendom,  their  efforts  are  embarrassed,  if  not 
paralysed,  by  this  evil  influence.  A  Bible  permeated 
by  romance  and  superstition  and  error  may  satisfy  the 
pseudo-Critics,  but  it  is  rejected  with  scorn  by  those 
who  revere  the  sacred  books  of  the  East. 

The  following  extracts  from  an  article  which  lately 
appeared  in  a  Mahometan  Review  will  show  how  this 
leaven  is  working  in  India.  After  quoting  some  of 
the  standard  works  of  the  pseudo-Critics,  the  writer 
proceeds : — 

*'  Thus  has  the  Bible  been  swept  away  as  a  straw  before 
the  mighty  current  of  modern  criticism,  and  such  was  the 
fate  it  deserved.  It  is  not  the  unmixed  Word  of  God,  it  is 
not  unerring.  .  .  .  But  if  the  Bible  is  erroneous  in  certain 
parts,  while  other  parts  of  it  contain  some  truth,  what  tests 
do  the  Christians  have  in  their  hands  for  distinguishing  truth 
from  error?  If  it  is  reason,  then  the  Christian  faith  must 
openly  avow  itself  to  be  based  on  reason  and  not  on  revelation. 
But  if  their  test  is  revelation,  surely  some  pure  and  trust- 
worthy revelation  free  from  error  is  required  to  sift  the 
truth  from  the  falsehood  contained  in  the  Bible.  This  revela- 
tion is  found  in  the  Holy  Qoran,  for  it  is  the  only  book  on 
the  face  of  the  earth  which  claims  to  be  the  true  and  unmixed 
Word  of  God,  and  hence  its  own  necessity  as  the  pure  Divine 
Word.  We  are  glad  to  see  that  the  view  which  the  Holy 
Qoran  took  of  the  Bible  has  at  last  been  admitted  by  even  the 
missionaries. 

"  The  truth  of  the  Higher  Criticism  and  the  error  of  the 


108  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

Bible  being  once  recognised,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  the 
Christian  religion  can  stand  for  one  moment,  .  .  .  We  hope 
that  the  Christian  missionaries  will  plainly  avow  these  truths 
and  condemn  the  false  belief  of  the  Divinity  of  Jesus."  ^ 

The  critics  are  too  much  infatuated  with  their 
criticisms  to  care  for  these  things;  but  they  will  not 
be  ignored  by  intelligent  and  thoughtful  men  of  the 
world. 

To  such  I  commend  the  following  words  from  the 
pen  of  a  great  scholar  and  theologian.  Written  more 
than  half  a  century  ago,  they  betokened  almost 
prophetic  insight.  In  his  commentary  on  the  passage 
in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  which  I  have  cited  on  a 
preceding  page.  Dean  Alford  writes : — 

"  It  is  important  to  observe  in  these  days  how  the  Lord 
here  includes  the  Old  Testament  and  all  its  unfolding  of  the 
Divine  purposes  regarding  Himself  in  His  teaching  of  the 
citizens  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  I  say  this,  because  it  is 
always  in  contempt  and  setting  aside  of  the  Old  Testament 
that  Rationalism  has  begun.  First,  its  historical  truth — then 
its  theocratic  dispensation  and  the  types  and  prophecies  con- 
nected with  it,  are  swept  away;  so  that  Christ  came  to  fulfil 
nothing,  and  becomes  only  a  teacher  or  a  martyr;  and  thus 
the  way  is  paved  for  a  similar  rejection  of  the  New  Testa- 

^  The  Review  of  Religions,  Punjab,  May,  1903.  I  have 
taken  this  from  the  Record  of  26th  June.  Since  the  above 
was  written,  a  letter  received  from  a  relative — one  of  the 
oldest  and  most  trusted  of  the  Church  Missionary  Society 
missionaries  in  North-West  India — mentions  a  visit  paid  him 
by  a  leading  Mahometan,  and  says :  "  He  talked  much  about 
the  Higher  Criticism,  saying  that  everybody  knew  now  that 
the  Christian's  Bible  was  not  inspired,  and  therefore  not  the 
Word  of  God  at  all,  and  so  of  course  very  inferior  to  the 
Qoran." 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  109 

ment — beginning  with  the  narratives  of  the  birth  and  infancy 
as  theocratic  myths — advancing  to  the  denial  of  His  miracles 
— then  attacking  the  truthfulness  of  His  own  sayings  which 
are  grounded  on  the  Old  Testament  as  a  revelation  from 
God — and  so  finally  leaving  us  nothing  in  the  Scriptures  but, 
as  a  German  writer  of  this  school  has  expressed  it,  *  a 
mythology  not  so  attractive  as  that  of  Greece.'  That  this  is 
the  course  which  unbelief  has  run  in  Germany,  should  be  a 
pregnant  warning  to  the  decriers  of  the  Old  Testament  among 
ourselves.  It  should  be  a  maxim  for  every  expositor  and 
every  student  that  Scripture  is  a  whole,  and  stands  or  falls 
together."  ' 

Dean  Alford  was  no  stranger  to  the  "  Higher  Criti- 
cism." Not  even  the  "  Essays  and  Reviews  "  had  ap- 
peared when  he  wrote  these  words;  but  he  was  well 
versed  in  the  German  literature  upon  the  subject. 
And  has  anything  since  transpired  to  weaken  their 
force?  Archaeological  research  has  been  rewarded  by 
unprecedented  success,  but  every  discovery  tends  to 
confirm  the  truth  of  the  Bible.  Can  anyone  point  to 
a  single  exception? 

But  with  the  Critics,  as  Professor  Sayce  indignantly 
declares — 

"  Baseless  assumptions  have  been  placed  on  a  level  with 
ascertained  facts,  hasty  conclusions  have  been  put  forward  as 
principles  of  science,  and  we  have  been  called  upon  to  accept 
the  prepossessions  and  fancies'  of  the  individual  critic  as  the 
revelation  of  a  new  gospel.  If  the  archaeologist  ventured  to 
suggest  that  the  facts  he  had  discovered  did  not  support  the 
views  of  the  Critic,  he  was  told  that  he  was  no  philologist. 
The  opinion  of  a  modern  German  theologian  was  worth  more, 
at  all  events  in  the  eyes  of  his  '  school,'  than  the  most  positive 
testimony  of  the  monuments  of  antiquity."' 

^  Greek  Test.  (Matt.  v.  i8).    The  italics  are  in  the  original 
*"  Higher  Criticism  and  the  Monuments,"  p.  5. 


110  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

In  this,  indeed,  lies  the  strength  of  "  the  critical 
position."  Arguments  can  be  refuted,  and  allegations 
of  fact  can  be  challenged.  But  a  system  which  rests 
on  assumptions  and  theories  eludes  us.  It  baffles  every 
effort  to  grapple  with  it. 

The  pseudo-Critic,  like  the  Roman  Catholic,  pro- 
fesses to  accept  the  Bible.  But  what  the  Church  is  to 
the  one,  "  Modern  Criticism  "  is  to  the  other — a  sort 
of  inaccessible  Grand  Lama  whose  decrees  (unlike 
the  sacred  writings)  are  authoritative  and  must  not  be 
questioned.  And  by  those  decrees  the  Bible  must  be 
interpreted.  Let  the  reader  study  any  one  of  the 
characteristic  articles  in  Hastings'  "  Dictionary "  or 
Cheyne's  "  Encyclopedia,"  and  he  will  understand  my 
meaning. 

Some  heresy  is  started  by  one  of  the  Critics — 
generally  a  German  sceptic ;  others  join  in  a  chorus 
of  approval,  and  their  united  voice  is  impersonated  as 
"  the  best  and  latest  scholarship."  To  illustrate  this 
I  need  not  go  beyond  the  Pentateuch  heresy.  The  one 
and  only  fact  on  which  the  whole  superstructure  rests 
is  that  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  Josiah  "  the  Book  of 
the  Law  "  was  found  in  the  sanctuary  ^  (a  fact  which  is 
explained  by  the  further  fact  that  it  had  been  placed 
there  by  Divine  command!).^  But  the  pseudo-Criti- 
cism has  decided  against  the  genuineness  of  "  the 
Mosaic  Books,"  and  therefore,  of  course,  Josiah's 
"  find  "  must  have  been  a  forgery.  That  decision,  as  we 
now  know,  was  based  on  an  ignorant  blunder.  The 
testimony  of  true  Higher  Criticism  is  against  it,  and  it 
is  vetoed  by  the  authoritative  teaching  of  the  Lord 

^2  Kings  xxii.  8.  ^Deut.  xxxi.  26  (R.  V.). 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  111 

Jesus  Christ.  But  that  counts  for  nothing;  for  the 
decrees  of  the  Critics  are  irreversible.  And  so  this 
baseless  theory,  backed  up  by  a  plausible  parade  of  the 
difficulties  which  beset  the  "  orthodox  belief,"  is  put 
forward  as  an  "  assured  result  of  modern  criticism." 

I  am  not  addressing  Sunday-school  children,  but 
intelligent  men  of  the  world,  who  are  competent  to 
refer  to  the  books  I  mention,  and  to  judge  for  them- 
selves whether  my  statement  of  the  matter  is  not  fair 
and  true. 


CHAPTER  X 

IN  the  preceding  pages  I  have  addressed  my 
readers  as  a  jury.  And  in  this  closing  chapter 
I  submit  a  final  issue  to  their  judgment.  What 
excuse  can  be  offered  to  justify  sensible  and  thought- 
ful men  in  prostrating  themselves  before  this  fetish  of 
the  pseudo-Criticism  ?  "  The  pseudo-Criticism,"  I 
say  advisedly,  for  this  sceptical  crusade  has  but  an 
illegitimate  kinship  with  true  Higher  Criticism — a 
system  of  Bible  study  to  which  we  owe  much,  and 
which  merits  respect  and  confidence. 

*'  The  latest  scholarship  "  ?  Surely  if  there  be  any 
sphere  in  which  novelty  should  inspire  caution,  if  not 
distrust,  it  is  here.  And  yet  the  pseudo-Critics  regard 
the  ablest  scholars,  even  of  the  last  generation,  much 
as  fashionable  ladies  treat  a  last  year's  bonnet.  As  for 
the  Apostles,  and  the  Fathers,  and  the  martyrs,  and 
"  the  whole  company  of  Christian  people "  for 
eighteen  centuries,  even  our  Sunday-school  children 
are  now  taught  to  regard  them  with  patronising  pity! 
And  no  wonder.  "  If  they  have  called  the  Master  of 
the  House  Beelzebub,  how  much  more  shall  they  call 
them  of  His  household  ? " — considering  how  the 
Master  is  treated  by  this  teaching,  His  servants  are 
not  likely  to  be  held  in  much  respect. 

But,  we  are  told,  these  men  are  earnest  and  devout, 

113 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  113 

and  they  know  Hebrew  and  Greek.  The  men  of  the 
now  discredited  Tubingen  school  were  earnest  and 
devout,  and  knew  Hebrew  and  Greek.  The  men  who 
crucified  Christ  knew  Hebrew  and  Greek,  and  some 
of  them  at  least  were  far  more  earnest  and  far  more 
devout.  Men  like  Saul  of  Tarsus  stood  higher  in 
these  respects  than  any  of  our  modern  Critics.  Zeal 
and  piety  and  scholarship  afford  no  proof  of  shrewd- 
ness and  wisdom  even  in  the  affairs  of  daily  life,  and 
they  are  quite  compatible  with  ignorance  and  error  in 
the  sphere  of  spiritual  truth. 

But,  it  will  be  urged  again,  all  this  ignores  the  diffi- 
culties in  the  Bible,  of  which  the  Critics  offer  a  solu- 
tion. I  dissociate  myself  from  those  who  deny  or 
minimise  the  difficulties.  But  the  greatest  difficulties 
are  not  those  with  which  this  criticism  deals.  The  sort 
of  difficulties  to  which  the  Critics  seem  to  attach  most 
importance  remind  us  of  old  Fuller's  sarcasm  about 
men  who  "  com.plain  that  the  room  is  dark  when  their 
eyes  are  blind."  And  even  these  they  solve  at  the  cost 
of  bringing  down  the  house  upon  our  heads.  For  the 
Christian  to  solve  difficulties  by  repudiating  the  teach- 
ing of  Christ,  is  like  committing  suicide  to  escape  from 
danger. 

The  difficulties  which  most  sorely  try  the  Christian's 
faith  have  their  counterpart  in  the  natural  sphere. 
This  fact,  indeed,  affords  no  solution  of  them,  but  it 
bars  the  argument  that  they  disprove  the  Divine 
authorship  of  the  Bible.  God's  work  in  nature 
abounds  in  mysteries  which  perplex  and  baffle  us ;  and 
if  the  .Bible  be  from  God,  we  may  expect  to  find  in  it 
mysteries  as  insoluble.    If  we  could  master  the  Bible 


114  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

as  we  master  other  books,  it  would  go  far  to  prove 
that  it  is  on  a  level  with  other  books.  It  would  give 
proof  that  the  God  of  nature  is  not  the  author  of  it. 

The  wildest  superstitions  of  human  religions  present 
nothing  so  essentially  incredible  as  Christianity.  That 
a  Jewish  mechanic  was  the  Only-begotten  Son  of  God, 
and  that  in  His  death,  when  consigned  to  the  gibbet 
as  a  blasphemer  and  disturber  of  the  peace.  He  be- 
came the  propitiation  for  the  sin  of  the  world — if  this 
be  true,  any  hard-headed  schoolboy  may  be  trusted  to 
see  through  the  elaborate  web  of  "  plausible  argu- 
ments," and  assumptions,  and  theories,  and  quibbles 
by  which  the  Critics  avoid  the  obvious  conclusion  that 
the  sacrifices  and  offerings  of  the  Pentateuch  were  a 
Divine  foreshadowing  of  it.  But  is  it  true?  May  it 
not  be  an  exquisite  dream  of  mystics,  suggested  by 
that  very  literature  which  the  Critics  seek  to  discredit  ? 

The  scepticism  of  book-scholars  and  professional 
ministers  of  religion  may  exhaust  itself  in  the  vagaries 
of  the  pseudo-Criticism,  but  with  thoughtful  and 
earnest  men  of  the  world  it  is  here  at  the  very  founda- 
tions that  faith  and  unbelief  measure  their  distance. 
If  the  mysteries  of  the  Christian  faith  are  Divinely 
revealed,  reason  bows  before  the  God  of  reason,  and 
accepts  them.  But  if  they  have  no  higher  sanction 
than  the  Critics'  Bible,  a  Bible  mutilated,  disparaged, 
and  discredited,  then  with  every  real  thinker — with 
every  man  of  common-sense,  indeed — ^reason  will 
assert  its  supremacy  and  refuse  assent. 

In  view  of  the  difficulties  which  confront  the  fear- 
less seeker  after  truth,  the  theories  of  the  Critics  re- 
mind us  of  the  pills  to  protect  from  earthquakes.    The 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  115 

real  Bible  difficulties  are  akin  to  those  which  in  the 
natural  sphere  make  infidels  of  so  many  men  of  science. 
They  bring  us  at  times  to  the  verge  of  rejecting  the 
whole  scheme  of  revelation,  and  regarding  Chris- 
tianity, as  Harnack  does,  as  a  sublime  dream,  a  noble 
system  of  ethics  and  mystical  philosophy,  a  splendid 
type  of  Neo-Buddhism — Buddhism  illumined  by  a 
personal  God. 

And  even  this  is  but  a  precarious  resting-place. 
For  it  is  not  so  clear  that  Matthew  Arnold  is  wrong  in 
maintaining  that  reason  does  not  lead  to  belief  in  a 
personal  God.  Once  we  leave  the  anchorage  of  faith 
we  may  drift  to  the  blind  and  hopeless  agnosticism  of 
Lord  Tennyson's  creed :  "  There's  a  something  that 
watches  over  us ;  and  our  individuality  endures :  that's 
my  faith,  and  that's  all  my  faith."  ^ 

The  public  facts  of  the  life  and  ministry  and  death 
of  the  Nazarene  are  as  well  accredited  as  any  facts 
of  ancient  history.  Statements  like  those  of  the  "  En- 
cyclopaedia Biblica,"  that  there  are  but  nine  passages 
in   the   Gospels   deserving  of  credence,   are  but  the 

^Nineteenth  Century,  June,  1903  (p.  1070).  The  editor 
quotes  it  from  an  article  written  in  the  Poet  Laureate's  life- 
time. Numerous  passages  in  his  poems  indicate  a  very  differ- 
ent faith.  How  is  the  enigma  to  be  explained?  Was  his 
agnosticism  assumed  to  please  his  agnostic  friends?  What  a 
contrast  his  words  present  to  the  testimony  of  that  great 
statesman  and  lawyer  and  judge,  Earl  Cairns:  "Every  day 
I  rise  with  a  sweet  consciousness  that  God  loves  me  and  cares 
for  me.  He  has  pardoned  all  my  sins  for  Christ's  sake,  and 
I  look  forward  to  the  future  with  no  dread.  .  .  .  Suppose 
it  were  possible  to  convince  me  that  this  was  a  delusion  on  my 
part    ...    all  would  be  dark  to  me." 


116  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

betises  of  blind  apostates.  They  are  an  insult  to  the 
intelligence  of  common  men.  But  in  the  Christian 
system  these  facts  owe  all  their  significance  to  the 
Divine  revelation  that  the  Nazarene  was  the  Son  of 
God;  that  His  death  was  an  expiatory  sacrifice  for 
human  sin ;  that  He  is  now  enthroned  in  heaven  as  the 
Saviour  of  men;  and  that  He  is  coming  again  to  be 
their  Judge. 

And  this  New  Testament  revelation  is  inextricably 
interwoven  with  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  If  the  Divine 
authority  of  the  Old  Testament  be  denied  (to  cite 
again  Dean  Alford's  words),  Christ  came  to  fulfil 
nothing,  and  the  way  is  paved  for  the  rejection  of  the 
New  Testament  itself:  its  very  framework  is  dislo- 
cated. Its  credentials  are  destroyed,  and  with  them 
its  credibility.  Instead  of  resting  on  preceding  revela- 
tions, of  which  they  are  the  realisation  and  fulfilment, 
the  mysteries  of  our  faith  are  left  hanging  *'  in  the  air." 

Can  anyone  who  disputes  this  cite  the  name  of  even 
one  great  thinker  who,  after  giving  up  faith  in  the 
Bible,  has  maintained  his  belief  in  the  Deity  of  Christ 
and  the  Atonement?  If  smaller  men  adhere  to  that 
belief,  it  is  because  they  are  either  illogical  or  weak. 
When  in  the  apostasy  of  Israel  the  Shekinah  glory 
departed  from  the  mercy-seat  it  still  lingered  near  the 
shrine.^  And  so  it  may  be  with  these  men;  they  still 
feel  the  power  of  the  truth  which  they  have  lost. 

With  others,  again,  the  faith  which  they  have  thus 
undermined  is  buttressed  by  superstition.  The  Bishop 
of  Worcester  is  the  foremost  champion  and  exponent 
of  this  system.     The  Church  of  Rome  acknowledges 

^Ezekiel  x. 


PSEUDO- CRITICISM  117 

the  supreme  authority  of  Holy  Scripture.  But  just  as 
the  interpretation  of  the  statutes  rests  with  the  King's 
Courts,  and  not  with  private  citizens,  so  the  interpre- 
tation of  the  Scriptures  rests  with  the  Church,  and  not 
with  private  Christians.  This  is  at  least  coherent  and 
logical.  But  this  Neo-Romanism  regards  the  Church 
as  more  and  higher  than  "  the  pillar  and  stay  of  the 
truth."  Its  function  is  not  to  interpret  the  Divinely 
inspired  Scriptures,  but  to  supply  their  defects.  It 
claims  to  be  itself  the  Divine  oracle — a  claim  which 
even  Rome  would  anathematize.  The  Gospels  which 
tell  us  of  the  Incarnation  and  Atonement  are  marred 
by  error,  but  yet  we  are  to  accept  these  mysteries  be- 
cause the  Church  accredits  them.^ 

This  theory  I  leave  to  the  judgment  of  the  thought- 
ful. My  only  comment  on  it  will  be,  that  if  we  must 
give  ourselves  up  to  be  thus  blindfolded  and  blindly 
led  I  would  rather  find  myself  in  the  ditch  with  devout 
men  like  Dr.  Gore,  than  in  the  other  ditch  with  the 
Rationalists. 

But  is  it  a  choice  of  ditches?  Is  this  what  Protes- 
tantism has  come  to?  Have  we  been  delivered  from 
the  yoke  of  the  priests  only  to  be  brought  into  bondage 
to  the  professors  ? 

In  a  previous  chapter  I  have  quoted  words  to  indi- 
cate the  spirit  in  which  the  genuine  truth-seeker  studies 
nature.  The  true  "  philosopher "  is  ever  ready  to 
echo  the  exclamation  which  the  scheme  of  revelation 
evoked  from  the  inspired  Apostle :  "  O  the  depth  of 
the  riches  both  of  the  wisdom  and  knowledge  of  God ! 
How  unsearchable  are  His  judgments,  and  His  ways 
* "  Lux  Mundi,"  p.  340. 


118  PSEUDO-CRITICISM 

past  finding  out !  "  ^  But  a  very  different  spirit  marks 
the  writings  of  the  Critics.  No  ''  vision  of  the  In- 
finite "  checks  what  Pusey  calls  their  "  cold-blooded 
patronising  ways  "  of  dealing  with  the  Bible.  Wisdom 
was  born  with  the  German  Rationalists  of  this  new 
crusade.  No  suspicion  that  they  may  be  mistaken 
seems  ever  to  cross  their  minds. 

This,  I  doubt  not,  will  bring  up  the  taunt  that  the 
preceding  pages  bespeak  equal  confidence.  But  the 
taunt  is  not  a  fair  one.  For  this  book  is  avowedly  a 
piece  of  destructive  criticism;  nothing  more.  Its  pur- 
pose is  not  to  expound  the  Scriptures,  but  to  expose 
fallacies.  And  surely  one  who  is  no  stranger  to  such 
a  task  may  enter  on  it  without  pretending  to  be  a 
Solon. 

The  pseudo-Critics  boast  that  the  majority  of  pro- 
fessional scholars  are  upon  their  side.  If  this  be  so, 
it  is  only  natural  that  men  who  wish  to  be  considered 
scholars  should  fall  into  fine  with  them.  But  as  the 
professors  themselves  have  ruled  out  philology  in  deal- 
ing with  questions  such,  e.  g.,  as  the  genuineness  of 
Daniel,  they  have,  by  their  own  showing,  no  more 
fitness  to  deal  with  them  than  a  company  of  eminent 
artists  or  musicians.  If  they  have  any  special  com- 
petence for  the  task,  it  must  depend  on  qualities  which 
they  possess  in  common  with  "  men  of  affairs " — 
qualities  in  which  "  men  of  affairs  "  are  more  likely 
to  excel.  Respect  and  admiration  for  scholars  within 
their  proper  province  is  compatible  with  distrust  of 
them  when  they  pass  outside  that  province,  as  they 
do  in  this  criticism  crusade. 

^  Romans  xi.  33. 


PSEUDO-CRITICISM  119 

In  conclusion,  then,  I  renew  my  appeal  to  intelligent 
and  thoughtful  men  to  ignore  the  guillotine  by  which 
the  pseudo-Critics  and  their  press  organs  seek  to  kill 
independent  inquiry.  ''  I  hold  no  man's  proxy,"  and 
I  expect  no  one  to  be  influenced  by  my  judgment.  My 
appeal  is  that  others  shall  look  into  these  questions  for 
themselves,  as  I  have  done.^ 

^  No  better  beginning  can  be  made  than  the  Daniel  con- 
troversy. First,  because  the  rejection  of  the  book  is  abso- 
lutely the  most  "  assured  result  of  modern  criticism,"  and 
therefore  we  here  attack  the  critical  position  at  its  strongest 
point.  And  secondly,  because,  though  dull  reading  as  formu- 
lated by  the  critics  and  the  theologians,  as  a  study  in  evidence 
it  is  full  of  interest.  Others  will  find,  as  I  did,  that  the  case 
against  the  book  is  a  strong  one,  and  that  grave  difficulties 
attend  the  so-called  orthodox  belief,  but  that  the  difficulties 
which  beset  the  "  critical  hypothesis  "  are  far  more  serious, 
and  that  the  positive  case  in  favour  of  the  book  is  unanswer- 
able. I  will  only  add  that  when  the  true  Higher  Criticism 
shakes  itself  free  from  its  counterfeit,  a  solution  will  perhaps 
be  found  for  some  of  the  difficulties  on  which  the  Critics  lay 
stress.  For  Daniel  was  edited  by  the  men  of  the  Great  Syna- 
gogue after  the  Nehemiah  revival,  and  the  LXX.  version  gives 
proof  that  it  had  been  corrupted. 


INDEX 


Alcaeus,  the  Poet,  24 

Alford,  Dean,  108,  109,  116 

Amraphel,  75 

Angels,  71 

Archaeology,    testimony     of, 

109 
Arnold,  Matthew,  14,  115 
Astruc,  Jean,  21 
Athnah  accent,  the,  27  n. 

"  Babel  and  Bible,"  64 ^. ,  76, 

80 
Babylon,  ancient,  66,  67,  68 
Baur,  F.  C,  28 
Belshazzar,  35 
Bible.     See     Jewish      Bible, 

Samaritan  Bible,  etc. 
"  Bible  Dictionary,"  the.    See 

Hastings'. 
"  Brutus  says,"  etc.,  29,  33,  35 

Cairns,  Earl,  115  n. 

Canaanites,  doom  of  the,  72 

Canon,  the  Jewish,  18,  26, 
180  n. 

Canon,  the,  same  as  our  Old 
Testament,  26,  92,  93 

Cheyne,  Professor,  32,  34 

Christianity,  incredibility  of, 
114 

Christ's  authority  as  a  teach- 
er, 94.^.,  102,  104 

Chronology  of  Old  Testa- 
ment, 87  n. 

Church,  authority  of  the,  116 

Cicero,  61 

Cosmogony,  the.  See  Crea- 
tion. 


Covenant,  the,  76,  77 
Creation,  the,  23,  40,  69 
"  Critic,"  meaning  of,  41 
Criticism.        See         Higher, 
Pseudo-,  Textual,  etc. 

Dana,  Professor,  23 

Daniel,  book  of,  23^.,  34  J"., 

118,  119  n. 
David,  King,  84,  85 
Deity  of   Christ,   32,   43,   44, 

114,  116 
Delitzsch,  Professor  F.,  64^^., 

80 
Deuteronomy,  book  of,  89,  96 
Difficulties      in     the     Bible, 

Dillmann,  Professor,  19,  29 
Driver,    Professor,   19,  25,  32, 

34,  35 
Durham,  Bishop  of,  93 

ECCLESIASTICUS,  26 

Eichhorn,  42 

*•  Encyclopaedia  Biblica,"  28, 

32,  no,  115 
Exodus,  book  of,  24 
Experts,  evidence  of,  15,  16 

Fairbairn,  Dr.,  45  «. 
Fall,  the,  70,  71 
Fatherhood  of  God,  the,  58 
Flood,  the,  69 

Genesis,   book  of,   23,  70,  75, 

82,  86,  88,  91 
Gladstone,  Mr.,  23,  73  «.,  loi 
Greek  words  in  Daniel,  24  J^ 


121 


122 


INDEX 


Hammurabi,  75 

Harnack,  Dr.,  27,  43  «.,  46  ff. 

105,  115 

Hastings'    "  Bible     Diction- 
ary," 28,  32,  94,  no 

Hebrews,  Epistle  to  the,  41, 

77 
Higher  Criticism,  i\ff. 
Huxley,  Professor,  23,  42 

Incarnation,  the,  43 

India,   Higher  Criticism    in, 

107 
"  Informers,"  evidence  of,  89 
Inspiration,  42 
Isaiah,  40,  91,  102 

Jewish  Canon.     See  Canon. 
John,  Gospel  of,  52,  54,  59 
Johns,  Mr.  C.  H.  W.,  64  ff. 
Josephus,  91 
Joshua's  miracle,  51 
Josiah,  King,  no 

Kenosis,  doctrine  of  the,  93, 

95,  96, 100 
Kirkpatrick,  Dr.  A.  F.,  65  n. 

Law,  74.     See  Mosaic  Code 

Maccabees,  book  of,  26 
Miracles,  12,  42,  50,  51 
Missions,  82,  106,  107 
Mosaic  Code,  the,  74,  75 
Moses,  books  of,  14,  18,  22,  75, 

102,  103,  no 
Murder  cases,  15 

Nineteenth  Century  Review ^ 
23,  75  «-,  115  n. 

Ordination  pledges,  31 

••  Patriarchal     narratives," 
the,  88,  89 


Pentateuch,    18  ff.,   21.     See 

Moses,  books  of. 
Police  cases,  11,  15 
Prophecy,  40 
Psalms,  book  of,  58 
Pseudo-Criticism,    11,    13,  17, 

27,  28,  29,  37,  39,  47,  78,  81, 

112 

Reformation,  the,  66 
Resurrection,  the,  95,  97 
Revelation,  a  primeval,  72 
Revised  Version  of  New  Tes- 
tament, 13  «. 
Rome,  Church  of,  62,  99,  no, 

n6 
Ryle,  Bishop,  26  n.,  27  «.,  80 
n.,  92 

Sabbath,  the,  67,  68,  69 

Sacrifice,  71,  72,  85,  86;  hea- 
then, 71,  72 

Salmon,  Dr.,  106  n. 

Samaritan  Bible,  \^  ff 

Satan,  96 

Sayce,  Professor,  22,  24,  109 

Schechter,  Dr.,  26  n. 

Scholarship,  the  Critics'  boast 
of,  29,  36,  65,  106,  112,  118 

Science,  23,  41,  46,  50 

Septuagint  Version,   the,  26, 

93 
Smith,  Professor  G.  A.,  78 _^. 
Strack,  Professor  H.,  29 

Temptation,  the,  95 
Tennyson,  Lord,  115 
Texts  perverted  by  the  Crit- 
ics: Ex.  vi.  3,  83;  Deut.  iv. 
19,  72,  84;  I  Sam.  xxvi.  19, 
85;  Jer.  vii.  22,  85 
Textual  criticism,  11,  13 
Transfiguration,  the,  95,  96 
"  Tribal  deity  "  theory,  82.  83 
"Tiibingen  School,"  the,  28, 

113 
Types,  the,  40 


INDEX 


123 


United  Free  Church  of  Scot- 
land, 78,  79,  87,  100  n. 


Wage,  Dean,  20 
Whately,  Archbishop,  20 
Winchester,   Bishop  of.     See 

Virgin  Birth,  the,  42,  43, 44,  48         Ryle,  Bishop. 

Voltaire,  40  n.  Worcester,  Bishop  of,  116 


THE    END 


In  Defense  of  Scripture 

Pseudo-Criticism ;  or,  The  Higher  Criticism  and  its  Counter- 
feit. By  Sir  Robert  Anderson,  K.  C.  B.,  LL.D.  i2mo, 
cloth,  75  cents,  net. 

From  the  viewpoint  of  the  legally  trained  layman,  the  author  shows 
the  radical  weaknesses  of  the  arguments  of  the  enemies  of  the  Bible. 
Hw  assails  the  critics  themselves,  and  proves  that  they  are  arguing  from 
a  prior  conviction,  and  presents  many  arguments  and  ideas  that  min- 
isters and  scholars  will  be  glad  to  hear." 

The  Bible  and  Modern  Criticism.  By  Sir  Robert  Anderson, 
K.  C.  B.,  LL.  D.     8vo,  $1.50,  net. 

With  keen  vision  and  cool  logic  he  dissects  the  results  of  criti- 
cal inquiry.  The  style  is  singularly  lucid  and  the  argument  relieved 
by  telling  anecdotes  often  as  effective  as  the  close  reasoning. 

Daniel  in  the  Critics*  Den.  A  Reply  to  Prof.  Driver's  De- 
structive Criticism,  by  Sir  Robert  Anderson,  K.  C.  B., 
LL.  D.     i2mo,  cloth,  $1.25,  net. 

An  unanswerable  refutation  of  the  British  rationalist's  attack  upon 
the  historic  character  of  the  book  of  Daniel. 

The  Integrity  of  the  Scriptures.  Plain  Reasons  for  Re- 
jecting the  Critical  Hypothesis,  by  Rev.  John  Smith, 
Edinburgh,  $1.25,  net.  Third  edition  of  a  most  effect- 
ive and  popular  series  of  lectures. 

The  Divine  Unity  of  the  Scriptures.  By  Rev.  Adolph  Saphir, 
D.  D.     i2mo,  cloth,  $1.50. 

A  searching  study  by  one  of  the  most  devout  and  able  scholars  of 
the  English  Church. 

Modern  Ideas  of  Evolution  as  Related  to  Revelation  and 
Science.  By  Sir  W.  J.  Dawson,  F.  R.  S.,  LL.  D.  i2mo, 
cloth,  $1.50. 

This  able  work  may  be  safely  commended  to  all  who  would  study 
with  a  masterly  teacher  the  important  subject  dealt  with  in  this  vol- 
ume. 

The  Divine  Origin  of  the  Bible,  Its  Authority  and  Power 
Demonstrated  and  Difficulties  Solved.  By  R.  A.  Torrey, 
D.  D.     i2mo,  cloth,  50  cents. 

The  author  has  delivered  the  substance  of  these  chapters  with 
remarkable  power  and  effect  in  an  around  the  world  tour. 

Many  Infallible  Proofs,  or  the  Evidences  of  Christianity. 
By  Arthur  T.  Pierson,  D.  D.    i2mo,  cloth,  $1. 

"  Covers  the  whole  battlefield  of  unbelief,  meeting  the  doubter  at 
every  point  with  a  candor  that  captivates  and  a  logic  that  captures." 

None  Like  It :  A  Plea  for  the  Old  Book.  By  Joseph  Parker, 
D.  D.     i2mo,  cloth,  $1.25. 

"  No  more  powerful  plea  has  been  presented  for  many  a  day  than 
this  work  by  the  late  great  preacher  of  City  Temple,  London." 

FLEMING    H.    REVELL  COMPANY 

New  York  :  158  Fifth  Ave.  Chicago :  63  Washington  St. 

TORONTO-LOWDON-EDINBTJBQH 


In  Defense  of  Scripture 

Are  the  Critics  Right  ?  By  W.  Moller.  Translated  from 
the  German  by  C.  H.  Irwin,  M.  A.,  and  with  an  interest- 
ing Introduction  by  Prof.  Von  Orelli  of  Basel,  the  eminent 
Old  Testament  scholar.   i2mo,  $i,oo,  net. 

It  is  sometimes  thought  that  German  theologians  have  universally- 
accepted  the  conclusions  of  the  critics.  This  work  affords  ample 
evidence  to  the  contrary. 

Monument   Facts  and   Higher  Critical   Fancies.     By  A.  H. 

Sayce,  D.  D.,  LL.   D.,  Professor  of  Assyriology  in  Univer- 
sity of  Oxford.     i2mo,  cloth,  75  cents,  net. 

Dr.  Sayce  argues  that  the  Monument  fact  is  a  better  guide  than 
Higher  Speculation,  and  makes  a  trenchant  assault  upon  some  of  the 
extreme  critical  positions.  Especially  valuable  to  be  read  in  connec- 
tion with  "Are  the  Critics  Right?" 

Bible  Criticism  and  the  Average  Man.  By  Howard  Agnew 
Johnston,  D.  D.     i2mo,  cloth,  $1.00,  net. 

"Discusses  the  nature,  history,  services,  and  errors  of  Bible  Criticism 
and  its  practical  bearing  on  each  book  or  group  of  books  in  the  Bible." 
—Herald  and  Presbyter. 

Eden  Lost  and  Won.      Studies  of  the  Early  History  and 

Final  Destiny  of  Man,  as  taught  by  Nature  and  Revelation. 

By  Sir  J.  William  Dawson,  F.  R.  S.,  LL.  D.     i2mo,  cloth, 

$1.25. 
The    Argument    for    Christianity,      Being  vol.  xi.  "  Living 

Papers."     By  Principal  Cairns,  Prof.  Blaikie,  and  others. 

i2mo,  cloth,  $1.00. 

The  Truth  of  the  Bible.  Being  vol.  xii.  "Living  Papers." 
By  Rev.  M.  Kaufman,  R.  A.  Redford  and  S.  W.  Green,  Sir 
J.  Wm.  Dawson,  and  others.     i2mo,  cloth,  $1.00. 

Christ,  the  Central  Evidence  of  Christianity,  and  other 
Papers.     By  Principal  Cairns.     i2mo,  cloth,  $1.00. 

The  Higher  Criticism.  By  Dean  Howson,  Principal  Wace, 
Prof.  Godet,  and  others.     i2rao,  cloth,  $1.00. 

Is  My  Bible  True?  Where  Did  We  Get  It?  By  Charles 
Leach,  D.  D.  With  facsimile  reproduction  of  ancient  MSS. 
i2mo,  cloth,  30  cents,  net. 

As  It  Was  in  the  Beginning.  The  Historic  Principle  Applied 
to  the  Mosaic  Scriptures.  By  Bishop  Edward  Cridge,  D.  D. 
i2mo,  cloth,  75  cents. 

The  Veracity  of  the  Hexateuch.     By  S.  C.  Bartlett,  D.  D., 

LL.  D.     i2mo,  cloth,  $1.50,  net. 

A  defense  of  the  historic  character  of  the  first  six  books  of  the  Bible 
by  a  former  President  of  Dartmouth  College. 

FLEMING  H.  REVELL  COMPANY 

New  York:  158  Fifth  Ave.  Chicago:  63  Washington  St. 

T0B0Xn?0-L0ND0N-EDINBT7IiaH 


AyAllABLE  ON   FICHE 

Date  Due 

rAClJij^ 

f 

! 

AG  1    1>T 

5^rf^*??"ip3 

Br' 

.if^r^"*"'''*"^"'^''^  .■■.fi/VWt 

!«!»»»-'■ 

f) 

